If more revenue is what we want from legalisation, other than removing the illegal element that is, then the government could grow marijuana in huge greenhouses/warehouses. I don't actually know the math but if it is done on a huge industrial scale then it should be an amount in pennies to the gram.
A gram in street value is £10. If the government takes over growing marijuana, even if it is distributed through pharmacists or newsagents that take a decent cut (as well as transportation) then the government would be making several pounds per gram.
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
On legalising marijuana, surely the only sane policy now is to wait a few years to see what the results of the mass field trial being run in Canada are?
It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population IIRC.
I think the medical profession would be interested in seeing that research...
There is no shortage of such evidence, such as the increases in Psychiatric Emergencies in Colorado following decriminalisation then legalisation:
Whilst stoners are very keen to justify their habit, there is ample evidence of harm from cannabis, particularly the high THC forms. The evidence from Colorado is of increased rates of usage.
Anyone wanting to worsen our mental health crisis in the young would give them two things: cannabis and a mobile phone.
And the evidence for 'proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'?
Have you read the links or am I the only idiot here doing that and your just spamming me with links?
The first one doesn't prove that at all, it goes on about usage, how risky it is seen as, goes off into a little paragraph about K2 spice, the short term effects of being stoned. It actually mentions nothing about what you are talking about.
Whilst enthusiastic prohibitionists are very keen to justify their moralising some of us would actually prefer to go by the evidence. If you can provide me some links you read yourself and confirm as saying what you claim I will read them.
Also If you really want to mess kids up confuse Spice and other synthetic drugs with marijuana they are nothing alike and the people who intentionally confuse them to push their own political message are messing with young people's lives.
If multiple links to the professional psychiatric literature does not convince you, then I am not sure what will.
I know a young white male Whitehall civil servant (Welsh, for what it is worth) who will bang on incessantly about how much he detests white men. He holds them in absolute contempt as the source of society's problems - which from his very "woke" perspective I can understand. Though since they themselves constitute
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" may be relieved to know he detests Islam as well, though.
I think it would be hard to be a young white male growing up in a media environment where the phrase "white male" is used almost exclusively in an accusatory manner, and rarely far from the word "privilege" (except when used to deal with the "white working class", who seem to be deemed a particularly homogeneous lump by those superiors who have appointed themselves as acting in their best interest, however much they dislike the views they have expressed on Brexit and immigration). What are the options? Neither self-abasement nor Trumpesque re-seizing of the identity strike me as healthy choices.
Again, I don't think this is a British-only problem by any means. I think it exposes one of the problems with identity politics in a world where majority groups feel increasingly insecure (and in localised areas, have been rendered the minority) due to immigration - at some point, their identity is going to become politicised too.
I know lots of people like that. My wife was appalled to find a friend of hers telling another friend's five year old son, the other day, that "boys are bad, very bad, a0nd girls are always better". The poor indoctrinated boy was growing up nodding along to this, and believing it to be true: that his gender, by definition, made him inferior and somehow "wrong".
My wife was so inhibited by the identity wars that she said nothing. But she has resolved, next time, to step in and say No.
A warped SJW identitarian mindset is brooding a generation of self-hating males (especially white males) who will eventually rebel against this definition, and probably rebel very violently. How will this end? Badly.
For the first time in my life, and for so many reasons, I no longer believe western culture is superior to others, and I no longer believe we will prevail.
In the face of western madness, the Chinese maybe have the right attitude, however offensive.
"We are the best, detain those who disagree in huge camps, until they agree."
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
On legalising marijuana, surely the only sane policy now is to wait a few years to see what the results of the mass field trial being run in Canada are?
It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population IIRC.
I think the medical profession would be interested in seeing that research...
There is no shortage of such evidence, such as the increases in Psychiatric Emergencies in Colorado following decriminalisation then legalisation:
Whilst stoners are very keen to justify their habit, there is ample evidence of harm from cannabis, particularly the high THC forms. The evidence from Colorado is of increased rates of usage.
Anyone wanting to worsen our mental health crisis in the young would give them two things: cannabis and a mobile phone.
And the evidence for 'proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'?
Have you read the links or am I the only idiot here doing that and your just spamming me with links?
The first one doesn't prove that at all, it goes on about usage, how risky it is seen as, goes off into a little paragraph about K2 spice, the short term effects of being stoned. It actually mentions nothing about what you are talking about.
Whilst enthusiastic prohibitionists are very keen to justify their moralising some of us would actually prefer to go by the evidence. If you can provide me some links you read yourself and confirm as saying what you claim I will read them.
Also If you really want to mess kids up confuse Spice and other synthetic drugs with marijuana they are nothing alike and the people who intentionally confuse them to push their own political message are messing with young people's lives.
If multiple links to the professional psychiatric literature does not convince you, then I am not sure what will.
I was very convinced by the first link... I believed every word it said.
Can you point out where it proves the statement
'It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'
The actual paragraph please because I was stupid enough to read the whole thing when I now the above statement to be false. So obviously it wasn't going to be contradicted in a professional setting.
If more revenue is what we want from legalisation, other than removing the illegal element that is, then the government could grow marijuana in huge greenhouses/warehouses. I don't actually know the math but if it is done on a huge industrial scale then it should be an amount in pennies to the gram.
A gram in street value is £10. If the government takes over growing marijuana, even if it is distributed through pharmacists or newsagents that take a decent cut (as well as transportation) then the government would be making several pounds per gram.
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
I was thinking more for the recreational end, I guess the medical end is more concentrated on trying to make it into other formats or reduce the stoned effects.
On legalising marijuana, surely the only sane policy now is to wait a few years to see what the results of the mass field trial being run in Canada are?
It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population IIRC.
I think the medical profession would be interested in seeing that research...
There is no shortage of such evidence, such as the increases in Psychiatric Emergencies in Colorado following decriminalisation then legalisation:
Whilst stoners are very keen to justify their habit, there is ample evidence of harm from cannabis, particularly the high THC forms. The evidence from Colorado is of increased rates of usage.
Anyone wanting to worsen our mental health crisis in the young would give them two things: cannabis and a mobile phone.
And the evidence for 'proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'?
Have you read the links or am I the only idiot here doing that and your just spamming me with links?
If multiple links to the professional psychiatric literature does not convince you, then I am not sure what will.
I was very convinced by the first link... I believed every word it said.
Can you point out where it proves the statement
'It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'
The actual paragraph please because I was stupid enough to read the whole thing when I now the above statement to be false. So obviously it wasn't going to be contradicted in a professional setting.
A significant increase in Emergency Department attendances following increased use, shown in the first link, and a 47% rate of this leading to long term psychiatric conditions in the second link.
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
On legalising marijuana, surely the only sane policy now is to wait a few years to see what the results of the mass field trial being run in Canada are?
It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population IIRC.
I think the medical profession would be interested in seeing that research...
There is no shortage of such evidence, such as the increases in Psychiatric Emergencies in Colorado following decriminalisation then legalisation:
Whilst stoners are very keen to justify their habit, there is ample evidence of harm from cannabis, particularly the high THC forms. The evidence from Colorado is of increased rates of usage.
Anyone wanting to worsen our mental health crisis in the young would give them two things: cannabis and a mobile phone.
How do they know that it isn't the mentally flaky who are attracted towards it in the first place? Correlation and all that.....
Yes, that has long been a discussion on that. It is not ethical to do an RCT on it, but what evidence we have is correlation.
Like I said, 30 years ago I would have had a different attitude to it, but I have seen too many casualties in friends and neighbours to be blase about the risks.
Is it really surprising that regular use of intoxicating psychoactive substances adversely affects brain chemistry and social function? This stuff is not chicken soup.
There are approved cannabinoid based medications available (Navamet, Cesamet, Marinol, Savitex, Epidilex etc - can’t be arsed to check the spelling). That’s the logical way to go rather than unrestricted access to weed.
If more revenue is what we want from legalisation, other than removing the illegal element that is, then the government could grow marijuana in huge greenhouses/warehouses. I don't actually know the math but if it is done on a huge industrial scale then it should be an amount in pennies to the gram.
A gram in street value is £10. If the government takes over growing marijuana, even if it is distributed through pharmacists or newsagents that take a decent cut (as well as transportation) then the government would be making several pounds per gram.
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
I was thinking more for the recreational end, I guess the medical end is more concentrated on trying to make it into other formats or reduce the stoned effects.
In other words getting the benefits without the side effects
And the evidence for 'proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'?
Have you read the links or am I the only idiot here doing that and your just spamming me with links?
If multiple links to the professional psychiatric literature does not convince you, then I am not sure what will.
I was very convinced by the first link... I believed every word it said.
Can you point out where it proves the statement
'It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'
The actual paragraph please because I was stupid enough to read the whole thing when I now the above statement to be false. So obviously it wasn't going to be contradicted in a professional setting.
A significant increase in Emergency Department attendances following increased use, shown in the first link, and a 47% rate of this leading to long term psychiatric conditions in the second link.
Yes and did you actually read the thing like I stupidly did?
The increase in Emergency Department attendances had absolutely no relation to the statement
'It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'
For example it mentioned people throwing up from using marijuana, throwing up is not a significant mental health problem.
The second link I had to log in to read anything much about it. If it proves the statement in question I have to say I am surprised it isn't bigger news, I suspect it doesn't and we all know about the flaws in correlation and causation.
If more revenue is what we want from legalisation, other than removing the illegal element that is, then the government could grow marijuana in huge greenhouses/warehouses. I don't actually know the math but if it is done on a huge industrial scale then it should be an amount in pennies to the gram.
A gram in street value is £10. If the government takes over growing marijuana, even if it is distributed through pharmacists or newsagents that take a decent cut (as well as transportation) then the government would be making several pounds per gram.
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
I was thinking more for the recreational end, I guess the medical end is more concentrated on trying to make it into other formats or reduce the stoned effects.
In other words getting the benefits without the side effects
Be interesting to see if they crack it, I think they had some trouble early on where they took out the stoned effects and took out the medical benefits with it. As long as they offer people with serious conditions who need it the ability to get unaltered weed I suppose there is no harm them trying.
I know a young white male Whitehall civil servant (Welsh, for what it is worth) who will bang on incessantly about how much he detests white men. He holds them in absolute contempt as the source of society's problems - which from his very "woke" perspective I can understand. Though since they themselves constitute
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" may be relieved to know he detests Islam as well, though.
I think it would be hard to be a young white male growing up in a media environment where the phrase "white male" is used almost exclusively in an accusatory manner, and rarely far from the word "privilege" (except when used to deal with the "white working class", who seem to be deemed a particularly homogeneous lump by those superiors who have appointed themselves as acting in their best interest, however much they dislike the views they have expressed on Brexit and immigration). What are the options? Neither self-abasement nor Trumpesque re-seizing of the identity strike me as healthy choices.
Again, I don't think this is a British-only problem by any means. I think it exposes one of the problems with identity politics in a world where majority groups feel increasingly insecure (and in localised areas, have been rendered the minority) due to immigration - at some point, their identity is going to become politicised too.
I know lots of people like that. My wife was appalled to find a friend of hers telling another friend's five year old son, the other day, that "boys are bad, very bad, a0nd girls are always better". The poor indoctrinated boy was growing up nodding along to this, and believing it to be true: that his gender, by definition, made him inferior and somehow "wrong".
My wife was so inhibited by the identity wars that she said nothing. But she has resolved, next time, to step in and say No.
A warped SJW identitarian mindset is brooding a generation of self-hating males (especially white males) who will eventually rebel against this definition, and probably rebel very violently. How will this end? Badly.
For the first time in my life, and for so many reasons, I no longer believe western culture is superior to others, and I no longer believe we will prevail.
In the face of western madness, the Chinese maybe have the right attitude, however offensive.
"We are the best, detain those who disagree in huge camps, until they agree."
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
"U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example)."
Until recently, a friend of mine was heavily involved in the data centre of a UK research institute. I'm slightly used to big data, but the amount of data they shift each day, yet alone store, is truly unbelievable (and I would not have believed him had he not been someone I've known for decades).
And this is a 'pure' science research establishment.
We don't publicise the great stuff we do enough; then again, people seem to be more interested in celebs than understanding how their world works.
If more revenue is what we want from legalisation, other than removing the illegal element that is, then the government could grow marijuana in huge greenhouses/warehouses. I don't actually know the math but if it is done on a huge industrial scale then it should be an amount in pennies to the gram.
A gram in street value is £10. If the government takes over growing marijuana, even if it is distributed through pharmacists or newsagents that take a decent cut (as well as transportation) then the government would be making several pounds per gram.
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
I was thinking more for the recreational end, I guess the medical end is more concentrated on trying to make it into other formats or reduce the stoned effects.
In other words getting the benefits without the side effects
Be interesting to see if they crack it, I think they had some trouble early on where they took out the stoned effects and took out the medical benefits with it. As long as they offer people with serious conditions who need it the ability to get unaltered weed I suppose there is no harm them trying.
There is no data to support weed having medical benefits. There are clear downsides. Unrestricted access for “medical benefits” is bullshit - there is no rigourous data to support it, just anecdotes.
There is a lot of work going on on THC, CBD and other actives within weed, but medical science is slow for a reason.
Legalising “unaltered weed” is a political call. Don’t try to pretend otherwise
I know a young white male Whitehall civil servant (Welsh, for what it is worth) who will bang on incessantly about how much he detests white men. He holds them in absolute contempt as the source of society's problems - which from his very "woke" perspective I can understand. Though since they themselves constitute
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" may be relieved to know he detests Islam as well, though.
I think it would be hard to be a young white male growing up in a media environment where the phrase "white male" is used almost exclusively in an accusatory manner, and rarely far from the word "privilege" (except when used to deal with the "white working class", who seem to be deemed a particularly homogeneous lump by those superiors who have appointed themselves as acting in their best interest, however much they dislike the views they have expressed on Brexit and immigration). What are the options? Neither self-abasement nor Trumpesque re-seizing of the identity strike me as healthy choices.
Again, I don't think this is a British-only problem by any means. I think it exposes one of the problems with identity politics in a world where majority groups feel increasingly insecure (and in localised areas, have been rendered the minority) due to immigration - at some point, their identity is going to become politicised too.
My wife was so inhibited by the identity wars that she said nothing. But she has resolved, next time, to step in and say No.
A warped SJW identitarian mindset is brooding a generation of self-hating males (especially white males) who will eventually rebel against this definition, and probably rebel very violently. How will this end? Badly.
For the first time in my life, and for so many reasons, I no longer believe western culture is superior to others, and I no longer believe we will prevail.
In the face of western madness, the Chinese maybe have the right attitude, however offensive.
"We are the best, detain those who disagree in huge camps, until they agree."
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
"U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example)."
Until recently, a friend of mine was heavily involved in the data centre of a UK research institute. I'm slightly used to big data, but the amount of data they shift each day, yet alone store, is truly unbelievable (and I would not have believed him had he not been someone I've known for decades).
And this is a 'pure' science research establishment.
We don't publicise the great stuff we do enough; then again, people seem to be more interested in celebs than understanding how their world works.
I forget the details but there is a building on the Sanger campus that is processing an extraordinary amount of data on the human genome.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
I get that.
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
I get that.
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
And yet is the way in to big firms for the consultants.
I know a young white male Whitehall civil servant (Welsh, for what it is worth) who will bang on incessantly about how much he detests white men. He holds them in absolute contempt as the source of society's problems - which from his very "woke" perspective I can understand. Though since they themselves constitute
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" may be relieved to know he detests Islam as well, though.
I think it would be hard to be a young white male growing up in a media environment where the phrase "white male" is used almost exclusively in an accusatory manner, and rarely far from the word "privilege" (except when used to deal with the "white working class", who seem to be deemed a particularly homogeneous lump by those superiors who have appointed themselves as acting in their best interest, however much they dislike the views they have expressed on Brexit and immigration). What are the options? Neither self-abasement nor Trumpesque re-seizing of the identity strike me as healthy choices.
Again, I don't think this is a British-only problem by any means. I think it exposes one of the problems with identity politics in a world where majority groups feel increasingly insecure (and in localised areas, have been rendered the minority) due to immigration - at some point, their identity is going to become politicised too.
I know lots of people like that.
For the first time in my life, and for so many reasons, I no longer believe western culture is superior to others, and I no longer believe we will prevail.
In the face of western madness, the Chinese maybe have the right attitude, however offensive.
"We are the best, detain those who disagree in huge camps, until they agree."
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is identity politics.
No it isn’t.
Oh yes it is!
The question is really how do we identify with our country? by ethnic nationality? by cultural nationality? by legal nationality only? and perhaps even more importantly how do we interact with others who lie in different parts of these 3 circles in a venn diagram?
I have been musing on the venn diagram of national identity, perhaps may get some of my thoughts down if I get a quiet spot over the holidays.
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
I get that.
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
And yet is the way in to big firms for the consultants.
But from a business perspective you’re just indulging in regulatory arbitrage which isn’t a sustainable strategy
From the regulatory perspective they need to get their act together
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a reactionary response to cultural diversity, and to economic stagnation.
Identity politics is at its core, but I agree that identity politics is wider.
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a reactionary response to cultural diversity, and to economic stagnation.
Identity politics is at its core, but I agree that identity politics is wider.
I definitely recall attacks on "Experts" and the "Metropolitan Elite". People wanted 'their' country back.
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a reactionary response to cultural diversity, and to economic stagnation.
Identity politics is at its core, but I agree that identity politics is wider.
so people in economically depressed areas should just suck it up ?
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
I was thinking more for the recreational end, I guess the medical end is more concentrated on trying to make it into other formats or reduce the stoned effects.
In other words getting the benefits without the side effects
Be interesting to see if they crack it, I think they had some trouble early on where they took out the stoned effects and took out the medical benefits with it. As long as they offer people with serious conditions who need it the ability to get unaltered weed I suppose there is no harm them trying.
There is no data to support weed having medical benefits. There are clear downsides. Unrestricted access for “medical benefits” is bullshit - there is no rigourous data to support it, just anecdotes.
There is a lot of work going on on THC, CBD and other actives within weed, but medical science is slow for a reason.
Legalising “unaltered weed” is a political call. Don’t try to pretend otherwise
I have actually felt pain relief from it myself, only once and in very specific circumstances. It has never done anything for a cut knee or a bruise or a headache for me for example. One time after having my face scraped, I think with a scalpel but I was anaesthetised at the time and when I woke up afterwards half my face felt like it was on fire from the throbbing sensation. Had to wait a few hours to go home but the pain relief was incredible. From throbbing to a sort of relaxed numb.
But my individual case is not really important there are people with serious conditions out there who take marijuana and it enables them to have some quality of life. Obviously it is actually the marijuana that helps them and has a medical benefit.
If you are saying we don't understand why it is of medical benefit then that is different but claiming that it doesn't have any medical benefit flies in the face of the available evidence.
On the legalising "unaltered weed" it would be a political call if you mean freely available like alcohol is. If you are talking about for people with serious conditions then it is simply a matter of humanity, do we want someone to suffer or help them.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
I get that.
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
I worked for one of the Big Four for a couple of years.
My view is that the way they operate isn’t far off being a cartel.
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
Of course it will. What you didn't address was the effects at the margin.
Brexit, of whatever flavour, isn't going to impoverish the UK overnight - though a no deal Brexit followed by a Corbyn government would be a damn good effort in that direction. What it will do is shave a bit off our growth rate; make us less resilient in bouncing back from recessions etc.
Citing deals as evidence is quite beside the point. It's the ones which don't happen over the next five to ten years that matter.
If you consider the amount smoked in Britain that would generate incredible amounts of money.
Government thinking on medical cannabis is more advanced than you might think. I’ve been impressed with some of the swerves they’ve come up with
I was thinking more for the recreational end, I guess the medical end is more concentrated on trying to make it into other formats or reduce the stoned effects.
In other words getting the benefits without the side effects
Be interesting to see if they crack it, I think they had some trouble early on where they took out the stoned effects and took out the medical benefits with it. As long as they offer people with serious conditions who need it the ability to get unaltered weed I suppose there is no harm them trying.
There is no data to support weed having medical benefits. There are clear downsides. Unrestricted access for “medical benefits” is bullshit - there is no rigourous data to support it, just anecdotes.
There is a lot of work going on on THC, CBD and other actives within weed, but medical science is slow for a reason.
Legalising “unaltered weed” is a political call. Don’t try to pretend otherwise
I have actually felt pain relief from it myself, only once and in very specific circumstances. It has never done anything for a cut knee or a bruise or a headache for me for example. One time after having my face scraped, I think with a scalpel but I was anaesthetised at the time and when I woke up afterwards half my face felt like it was on fire from the throbbing sensation. Had to wait a few hours to go home but the pain relief was incredible. From throbbing to a sort of relaxed numb.
But my individual case is not really important there are people with serious conditions out there who take marijuana and it enables them to have some quality of life. Obviously it is actually the marijuana that helps them and has a medical benefit.
If you are saying we don't understand why it is of medical benefit then that is different but claiming that it doesn't have any medical benefit flies in the face of the available evidence.
On the legalising "unaltered weed" it would be a political call if you mean freely available like alcohol is. If you are talking about for people with serious conditions then it is simply a matter of humanity, do we want someone to suffer or help them.
Somebody upthread suggested that it could be a Tory offer to the younger generations next time.
I'm not sure I agree. 'You'd have to be on weed to vote for them' virtually writes itself as a soundbite....
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Yes, I see the point, and share some of the concerns.
It isn't however doing anyone any favours when discussion of such matters spirals into the sort of nighttime anti-Islamic or white supremacist rants we sometimes see on this site, and therefore needs to be tackled with analysis rather than hyperbole (such as your opening "end of democracy").
We also need to try hard to approach the subject neutrally in respect of "our" identities and "other" identities. Opposing political favour to one set of identities by advocating or defending the interests of another set is as much identity politics as the original.
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
Of course it will. What you didn't address was the effects at the margin.
Brexit, of whatever flavour, isn't going to impoverish the UK overnight - though a no deal Brexit followed by a Corbyn government would be a damn good effort in that direction. What it will do is shave a bit off our growth rate; make us less resilient in bouncing back from recessions etc.
Citing deals as evidence is quite beside the point. It's the ones which don't happen over the next five to ten years that matter.
the only growth rate that matters is GDP per head and thats not what is being reviewed by BoE and treasury
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
I get that.
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
I worked for one of the Big Four for a couple of years.
My view is that the way they operate isn’t far off being a cartel.
Two UK rail suppliers to major projects such as HS1 and Crossrail have admitted to operating an illegal cartel for almost seven years with the goal of increasing prices and reducing competition in the drainage market.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) provisionally found that the two companies – Derbyshire-based Stanton Bonna Concrete Ltd and Somerset-based CPM Group Ltd – broke competition law by holding regular secret meetings to set up and operate an illegal cartel.
Be interesting to see if they crack it, I think they had some trouble early on where they took out the stoned effects and took out the medical benefits with it. As long as they offer people with serious conditions who need it the ability to get unaltered weed I suppose there is no harm them trying.
There is no data to support weed having medical benefits. There are clear downsides. Unrestricted access for “medical benefits” is bullshit - there is no rigourous data to support it, just anecdotes.
There is a lot of work going on on THC, CBD and other actives within weed, but medical science is slow for a reason.
Legalising “unaltered weed” is a political call. Don’t try to pretend otherwise
I have actually felt pain relief from it myself, only once and in very specific circumstances. It has never done anything for a cut knee or a bruise or a headache for me for example. One time after having my face scraped, I think with a scalpel but I was anaesthetised at the time and when I woke up afterwards half my face felt like it was on fire from the throbbing sensation. Had to wait a few hours to go home but the pain relief was incredible. From throbbing to a sort of relaxed numb.
But my individual case is not really important there are people with serious conditions out there who take marijuana and it enables them to have some quality of life. Obviously it is actually the marijuana that helps them and has a medical benefit.
If you are saying we don't understand why it is of medical benefit then that is different but claiming that it doesn't have any medical benefit flies in the face of the available evidence.
On the legalising "unaltered weed" it would be a political call if you mean freely available like alcohol is. If you are talking about for people with serious conditions then it is simply a matter of humanity, do we want someone to suffer or help them.
Multiple anecdotes is not the same as evidence.
I personally believe that there are pharmacologically active elements within marijuana which have medical benefits.
But if you are going to approve them as medicines - with all the regulatory implications - then you need RCT data to do so. The regulations are there to protect patients.
As it happens the U.K. government has been impressively creative with a regulatory swerve they have come up with (sorry don’t know if it is public so can’t share the details).
But free access like you suggest would be unethical. Sick people need professional medical care.
I know a young white male Whitehall civil servant (Welsh, for what it is worth) who will bang on incessantly about how much he detests white men. He holds them in absolute contempt as the source of society's problems - which from his very "woke" perspective I can understand. Though since they themselves constitute
"Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" may be relieved to know he detests Islam as well, though.
[snip]
Again, I don't think this is a British-only problem by any means. I think it exposes one of the problems with identity politics in a world where majority groups feel increasingly insecure (and in localised areas, have been rendered the minority) due to immigration - at some point, their identity is going to become politicised too.
I know lots of people like that.
For the first time in my life, and for so many reasons, I no longer believe western culture is superior to others, and I no longer believe we will prevail.
In the face of western madness, the Chinese maybe have the right attitude, however offensive.
"We are the best, detain those who disagree in huge camps, until they agree."
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is identity politics.
No it isn’t.
Oh yes it is!
The question is really how do we identify with our country? by ethnic nationality? by cultural nationality? by legal nationality only? and perhaps even more importantly how do we interact with others who lie in different parts of these 3 circles in a venn diagram?
I have been musing on the venn diagram of national identity, perhaps may get some of my thoughts down if I get a quiet spot over the holidays.
Interesting discussion - would make a good PB article over the holidays if you felt like it.
There was a R4 discussion a day or two ago with someone who grew up in Scandinavia and said that what she described as the traditional ethos that the state would look after you and you shouldn't feel close to your parents (she exagerrated in my view, but never mind) was having trouble with immigrants who were keen on close-knit families and deference to the elderly. I've met people who dislike mass immigration but rather like some of the cultural values, such as Muslim aversion to alcohol.
I think that a poll on "Is identity with your country very important to you?" would be interesting and would show up quite dramatic differences by age and nationality.
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a reactionary response to cultural diversity, and to economic stagnation.
Identity politics is at its core, but I agree that identity politics is wider.
Brexit and Corbyn are both reactions to globalisation, people thinking immigration is too high and a need to reassert national culture and austerity
There is no data to support weed having medical benefits. There are clear downsides. Unrestricted access for “medical benefits” is bullshit - there is no rigourous data to support it, just anecdotes.
There is a lot of work going on on THC, CBD and other actives within weed, but medical science is slow for a reason.
Legalising “unaltered weed” is a political call. Don’t try to pretend otherwise
I have actually felt pain relief from it myself, only once and in very specific circumstances. It has never done anything for a cut knee or a bruise or a headache for me for example. One time after having my face scraped, I think with a scalpel but I was anaesthetised at the time and when I woke up afterwards half my face felt like it was on fire from the throbbing sensation. Had to wait a few hours to go home but the pain relief was incredible. From throbbing to a sort of relaxed numb.
But my individual case is not really important there are people with serious conditions out there who take marijuana and it enables them to have some quality of life. Obviously it is actually the marijuana that helps them and has a medical benefit.
If you are saying we don't understand why it is of medical benefit then that is different but claiming that it doesn't have any medical benefit flies in the face of the available evidence.
On the legalising "unaltered weed" it would be a political call if you mean freely available like alcohol is. If you are talking about for people with serious conditions then it is simply a matter of humanity, do we want someone to suffer or help them.
Somebody upthread suggested that it could be a Tory offer to the younger generations next time.
I'm not sure I agree. 'You'd have to be on weed to vote for them' virtually writes itself as a soundbite....
I can't see it being an attack line for Labour, if anything I imagine we would be wondering why we haven't suggested it first.
Obviously the Lib Dems are already on board. I think potential opposition would melt away if the Tories come out in favour, in terms political parties anyway. I'm sure the Daily Mail or some of the more reactionary types could complain but given its quasi legal status at the moment most people wouldn't actually notice the difference once its done.
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a cultural funerary rite for a lost notion of British identity that concentrated power and wealth around white men of the capital owning class. You only have to seen how many of the "Empire 2.0" supporters there area among the convocation of dunces that voted for it.
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
Of course it will. What you didn't address was the effects at the margin.
Brexit, of whatever flavour, isn't going to impoverish the UK overnight - though a no deal Brexit followed by a Corbyn government would be a damn good effort in that direction. What it will do is shave a bit off our growth rate; make us less resilient in bouncing back from recessions etc.
Citing deals as evidence is quite beside the point. It's the ones which don't happen over the next five to ten years that matter.
You can’t prove a negative
But, for example, Germany forced us to change the patent box. Bringing that back would massively boost the industry
Just looking at this thing about the government getting "secret legal advice" that they can't have a second referendum because it would be illegal not to have the Euro elections. (You have to make things like this "secret", otherwise the newspaper editors won't be interested when you send it to them.)
I can't see the full text because it's paywalled but seems like fairly ridiculous spin: Clearly if you stayed in the EU, even if only for a few months, you'd have the elections, instead of illegally not having them. The EP has handled changes in its membership partway through the term before, and they've already made contingency plans in case they need to do it for the UK.
But what I wondered was: Given that you need to hold elections from May 23-26th, and the UK is currently not making any preparations to have them, is there a practical or legal lead-time that means that after date x, it's too late to organize them in time?
Can you imagine the fun that would be had by the voters in those elections? The pissed off Leave voters could send a raft of MEPs for the Fuck Jean Claude Juncker Up The Ass With A Bendy Banana Party. If only for a fortnight.
My problem with medical use of weed is the risk/benefit analysis, or rather the lack of it. Registered drugs have side-effects as well as benefits; before being registered, this needs to be assessed. That's why the 'benefits' need to be seen to be real in scientific studies.
If this goes ahead, I await the first major law-suit against the suppliers. I worked for Roche, in toxicology, for more than 16 years during the heyday of the benzos. They, like many drugs, are receptor-mediated, and thus rebound can occur. Some people will have idiosyncratic reactions to any drug. I worry this is politicians going for the popular and ignoring the unforeseen (for them) consequences.
Although I never made marketing decisions, I'd have always erred on the cautious side. Public opinion is fickle, and being on the right side now is no guarantee.
Edit: By all means, accelerate the process, but keep a process.
Re Science. I understand there are now problems developing with visas for people wishing to attend conferences. Several cases of people being delayed or even refused.
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
Totally O/t, but I see the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wants to separate audit from consulting services, while also encouraging a wider choice of auditors.
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The odd thing is that they have done this several times before but each time after a few years the auditors start to build a consulting business again
It’s not odd, consulting is way more profitable than auditing.
I get that.
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
I worked for one of the Big Four for a couple of years.
My view is that the way they operate isn’t far off being a cartel.
A lot of companies use the Big 4 simply because of teputational risk of doing otherwise. If you use one of the other audit firms you assumed to be producing dodgy accounts, whether you are or not, and your share price gets marked down accordingly.
The BigFirms also have the advantage that they big enough to sue if something does go wrong.
There are plenty of more dysfunctional markets than audit. This is a knee jerk reaction by politicians angry at Carillion.
The problem with the CMA. is that it is too eclectic. For capitalism to work effectively, you need strong co petition and primacy of consumer interests. The CMA has no mandate to help deliver this. It needs to be overhauled. If consumer interests were paramount, utilities like power gen and also rail franchises would be run very differently.
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a cultural funerary rite for a lost notion of British identity that concentrated power and wealth around white men of the capital owning class. You only have to seen how many of the "Empire 2.0" supporters there area among the convocation of dunces that voted for it.
The largest vote for Brexit came from white working class men, just as the largest vote for Trump, Le Pen, the AfD, Wilders, Lega Nord, the Swedish Democrats, Vox etc also came from that demographic
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
I personally believe that there are pharmacologically active elements within marijuana which have medical benefits.
But if you are going to approve them as medicines - with all the regulatory implications - then you need RCT data to do so. The regulations are there to protect patients.
As it happens the U.K. government has been impressively creative with a regulatory swerve they have come up with (sorry don’t know if it is public so can’t share the details).
But free access like you suggest would be unethical. Sick people need professional medical care.
I'm not sure what you think you mean when you say no medical benefit but there clearly is a medical benefit, if you mean there clearly is a medical benefit but we don't fully understand that medical benefit then I would accept that.
The only other explanation that makes sense is some grand conspiracy of doctors and sick people all pretending it has a medical benefit who have enlisted the the help of scientists.
TBH for people with serious conditions the downsides of weed are nothing compared to the relief. If the are medicines available that work better than we should definitely use them.
But if there is someone with a serious debilitating condition who marijuana provides relief to that other medicines can't or can't without severe side effects then of course we don't torture them by restricting access. If people want to work to create medicine from it that is great but you don't just leave the person unable unable to have any quality of life in the meantime when we have it available.
Just looking at this thing about the government getting "secret legal advice" that they can't have a second referendum because it would be illegal not to have the Euro elections. (You have to make things like this "secret", otherwise the newspaper editors won't be interested when you send it to them.)
I can't see the full text because it's paywalled but seems like fairly ridiculous spin: Clearly if you stayed in the EU, even if only for a few months, you'd have the elections, instead of illegally not having them. The EP has handled changes in its membership partway through the term before, and they've already made contingency plans in case they need to do it for the UK.
But what I wondered was: Given that you need to hold elections from May 23-26th, and the UK is currently not making any preparations to have them, is there a practical or legal lead-time that means that after date x, it's too late to organize them in time?
Can you imagine the fun that would be had by the voters in those elections? The pissed off Leave voters could send a raft of MEPs for the Fuck Jean Claude Juncker Up The Ass With A Bendy Banana Party. If only for a fortnight.
They could indeed, and it would be an improvement on the sleazy collection of lazy chancers they sent there last time.
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
A great positive advert for the EU.
Unlike say cities such Lille, Palermo, Dortmund, Glasgow etc
Just looking at this thing about the government getting "secret legal advice" that they can't have a second referendum because it would be illegal not to have the Euro elections. (You have to make things like this "secret", otherwise the newspaper editors won't be interested when you send it to them.)
I can't see the full text because it's paywalled but seems like fairly ridiculous spin: Clearly if you stayed in the EU, even if only for a few months, you'd have the elections, instead of illegally not having them. The EP has handled changes in its membership partway through the term before, and they've already made contingency plans in case they need to do it for the UK.
But what I wondered was: Given that you need to hold elections from May 23-26th, and the UK is currently not making any preparations to have them, is there a practical or legal lead-time that means that after date x, it's too late to organize them in time?
Can you imagine the fun that would be had by the voters in those elections? The pissed off Leave voters could send a raft of MEPs for the Fuck Jean Claude Juncker Up The Ass With A Bendy Banana Party. If only for a fortnight.
They could indeed, and it would be an improvement on the sleazy collection of lazy chancers they sent there last time.
Although that might be UKIPs name by the time we got to vote.....
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
No vote of confidence is better than a bad vote vote of confidence then - to misquote a certain phrase.
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
A great positive advert for the EU.
And they will never get a cent of my tourist money whilst the bastards slaughter our migrating birds in unconscionable numbers. Fat lot of good the EU has been in stopping that.
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
It's a good job then they haven't criticised anyone else for pulling a vital division because it was clear she would lose...oh.
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
No vote of confidence is better than a bad vote vote of confidence then - to misquote a certain phrase.
No doubt we will learn that Corbyn was present but not involved in VONC-gate......
Indeed, at the end of the path of identity politics the end of democracy lies.
Brexit is the ultimate expression of identity politics. It's about Britishness...
Britishness is an inclusive macro-identity.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Neither is being European, so you're not really adding much to the debate.
This isn’t about Brexit. It’s only the obsessives on this site who insist on making everything about that. It’s about something far more insidious happening across most major Western democracies.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
Brexit is a cultural funerary rite for a lost notion of British identity that concentrated power and wealth around white men of the capital owning class. You only have to seen how many of the "Empire 2.0" supporters there area among the convocation of dunces that voted for it.
The largest vote for Brexit came from white working class men, just as the largest vote for Trump, Le Pen, the AfD, Wilders, Lega Nord, the Swedish Democrats, Vox etc also came from that demographic
They are a tough crowd to win over to another point of view once they've made their minds up.
My problem with medical use of weed is the risk/benefit analysis, or rather the lack of it. Registered drugs have side-effects as well as benefits; before being registered, this needs to be assessed. That's why the 'benefits' need to be seen to be real in scientific studies.
If this goes ahead, I await the first major law-suit against the suppliers. I worked for Roche, in toxicology, for more than 16 years during the heyday of the benzos. They, like many drugs, are receptor-mediated, and thus rebound can occur. Some people will have idiosyncratic reactions to any drug. I worry this is politicians going for the popular and ignoring the unforeseen (for them) consequences.
Although I never made marketing decisions, I'd have always erred on the cautious side. Public opinion is fickle, and being on the right side now is no guarantee.
Edit: By all means, accelerate the process, but keep a process.
I wouldn't suggest we go crazy with it or anything. At first you only go for patients with the most serious conditions, either ones for who other treatments don't work or for people who the alternative treatments come with terrible side effects.
I was actually thinking of worse than this but for example
The downsides of marijuana are pretty well known, it must be one of the worlds most widely used drugs. Looking at the difference it makes for the guy above and taking into account that alcohol is actually worse for you would you suggest the guy with Parkinson above would be better off drinking a couple of shots or suffering like he was?
By all means we should do as much testing as we can but the reasons for holding marijuana back from people with the most serious conditions are false, it does them far more good than harm.
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
Not even that - Corbyn is exploiting a loophole in the Labour conference vote that means he doesn’t need to support a #peoplesvote until a GE is ruled out. By not proposing a VONC he makes sure the election doesn’t happen.
Mr. Fire, loophole? It ended up that way by design. Socialists don't know the first thing about economics, but they're damned skilful when it comes to manipulating internal party politics.
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
Not even that - Corbyn is exploiting a loophole in the Labour conference vote that means he doesn’t need to support a #peoplesvote until a GE is ruled out. By not proposing a VONC he makes sure the election doesn’t happen.
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
A year or so ago I made a comment that most healthcare companies were planning to move from uk regulation to EC regulation. This was dismissed as project fear. Well in this case I was right. Funny that I know more about my industry than armchair critics. The price for more control of freedom of movement is complete loss of control over the economy
If they want to operate in the U.K. they have to be MHRA approved
There is increasing convergence between authorities (eg FDA and EMA recognising each other’s inspections) but you can’t just simply “move from U.K. regulation to EV regulation”
But that’s rather the point. There is likely to be a slow erosion of the UK’s life science industry, as at the margin, investment and scientists will migrate to Europe.
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
"U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example)."
Until recently, a friend of mine was heavily involved in the data centre of a UK research institute. I'm slightly used to big data, but the amount of data they shift each day, yet alone store, is truly unbelievable (and I would not have believed him had he not been someone I've known for decades).
And this is a 'pure' science research establishment.
We don't publicise the great stuff we do enough; then again, people seem to be more interested in celebs than understanding how their world works.
I forget the details but there is a building on the Sanger campus that is processing an extraordinary amount of data on the human genome.
Yes, I wonder why I mentioned my friend's old workplace in response to your comment about the Sanger.
The amount of data they shift is truly mind-boggling, and there seems to be research into just managing the data produced, yet alone the research that creates the data.
I'm not sure what you think you mean when you say no medical benefit but there clearly is a medical benefit, if you mean there clearly is a medical benefit but we don't fully understand that medical benefit then I would accept that.
The only other explanation that makes sense is some grand conspiracy of doctors and sick people all pretending it has a medical benefit who have enlisted the the help of scientists.
TBH for people with serious conditions the downsides of weed are nothing compared to the relief. If the are medicines available that work better than we should definitely use them.
But if there is someone with a serious debilitating condition who marijuana provides relief to that other medicines can't or can't without severe side effects then of course we don't torture them by restricting access. If people want to work to create medicine from it that is great but you don't just leave the person unable unable to have any quality of life in the meantime when we have it available.
Without the trail I can’t see if I mistyped
I think there is a medical benefit from some molecules within marijuana. There are cannabinoid based pharmaceuticals that have been approved based on randomised clinical trials.
However there have not (as far as I am aware) been statistically significant RCTs on marijuana itself. There are also real problems around quality and consistency of the product. As a result there is no sound basis for approving marijuana as a medical product: at the moment your argument is “some sick people used marijuana and felt better” without excluding the possibility it was a placebo effect, random chance, or some other factor.
Of course you can make an argument for allowing access to marijuana for sick patients with no alternative. But let’s not pretend this is based on science or is part of the medical regulatory framework (I know it’s frustratingly slow at times but it is there for a reason). It’s simply a political decision.
Labour is simply hoping that what happens after the deal is rejected will be clearer, or at least on the way to being sorted, before they put their VONC and then have to say what they want to happen next. It is as much kicking the can, avoiding the issues and a dereliction of their responsibility as we are seeing from the government. Following not leading.
Not even that - Corbyn is exploiting a loophole in the Labour conference vote that means he doesn’t need to support a #peoplesvote until a GE is ruled out. By not proposing a VONC he makes sure the election doesn’t happen.
Yes, as I said yesterday. A pitiful situation where the opposition is frightened to oppose lest they have to say what they would do instead.
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
A great positive advert for the EU.
the Hartlepool of the Medterranean
Nowhere near enough tattoos. Come to think of it If it wasn't for so many young people and the absence of Conservative associations and the lack of sunshine I'd have thought I was in Ludlow.
Looks like the cabinet is turning toward no deal rather than no brexit when May's deal fails.
Let's hope Brussels thinks that, eh?
I don't think that you can rely on others to save us from No Deal.
But it is still probably your best hope.
If we No Deal Brexit, it will represent the biggest fuck up of diplomocy since [Morris Dancer to insert example from about 3,000 years ago].
"We have the Brits exactly where we want them. Their only option is to crash out and they would never....FUUUUUUUUUCK! That crazy woman is actually going to crash out....."
OT. If anyone wants to emigrate from this damp and deteriorating country could I put in a word for Valletta the European City of Culture 2018.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
A great positive advert for the EU.
the Hartlepool of the Medterranean
Do they execute Monkeys?
odd to think that Malta could have been as british as hartlepool if the 1956 referendum had gone the right way.
Then Roger could have complained about overcrowded streets, shabby buildings and fat Maltese littering the beaches.
Looks like the cabinet is turning toward no deal rather than no brexit when May's deal fails.
Let's hope Brussels thinks that, eh?
I don't think that you can rely on others to save us from No Deal.
But it is still probably your best hope.
If we No Deal Brexit, it will represent the biggest fuck up of diplomocy since [Morris Dancer to insert example from about 3,000 years ago].
"We have the Brits exactly where we want them. Their only option is to crash out and they would never....FUUUUUUUUUCK! That crazy woman is actually going to crash out....."
We'll all have a ringside seat as the Tory Party destroys its credibility.
Comments
Can you point out where it proves the statement
'It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'
The actual paragraph please because I was stupid enough to read the whole thing when I now the above statement to be false. So obviously it wasn't going to be contradicted in a professional setting.
That’s not what UCB and others think
http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/ucb_to_invest_1bn_into_uk_under_life_sciences_sector_deal_1272053
U.K. science is phenomenal (just go to the Sanger Institute for example). Our capital markets provision in the sector is broken. The MHRA and NICE are leaders in their sector. Tax is thoughtful despite the Germans best efforts to bust the patent box.
The U.K. IK will continue to be open to multilateral scientific engagement
Soinds eminently sensible to me. While, when I was in business, I took advice from our auditors it never struck me asa good idea.
The increase in Emergency Department attendances had absolutely no relation to the statement
'It's been proven to cause mental health problems in a significant percentage of the population'
For example it mentioned people throwing up from using marijuana, throwing up is not a significant mental health problem.
The second link I had to log in to read anything much about it. If it proves the statement in question I have to say I am surprised it isn't bigger news, I suspect it doesn't and we all know about the flaws in correlation and causation.
It doesn’t disaggregate people by gender, race or sexuality.
Until recently, a friend of mine was heavily involved in the data centre of a UK research institute. I'm slightly used to big data, but the amount of data they shift each day, yet alone store, is truly unbelievable (and I would not have believed him had he not been someone I've known for decades).
And this is a 'pure' science research establishment.
We don't publicise the great stuff we do enough; then again, people seem to be more interested in celebs than understanding how their world works.
There is a lot of work going on on THC, CBD and other actives within weed, but medical science is slow for a reason.
Legalising “unaltered weed” is a political call. Don’t try to pretend otherwise
But if the regulators have slapped you down multiple times (twice on IT and twice on corporate finance advisory) plus once on tax (I think) you’d have thought they’d learn.
Audit - like banking - should be a utility like function with utility like returns
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/17/theresa-may-intensifies-warnings-over-risks-of-no-deal-brexit
The question is really how do we identify with our country? by ethnic nationality? by cultural nationality? by legal nationality only? and perhaps even more importantly how do we interact with others who lie in different parts of these 3 circles in a venn diagram?
I have been musing on the venn diagram of national identity, perhaps may get some of my thoughts down if I get a quiet spot over the holidays.
If you can’t see that you’re acquiescing in the problem.
From the regulatory perspective they need to get their act together
Identity politics is at its core, but I agree that identity politics is wider.
But my individual case is not really important there are people with serious conditions out there who take marijuana and it enables them to have some quality of life. Obviously it is actually the marijuana that helps them and has a medical benefit.
If you are saying we don't understand why it is of medical benefit then that is different but claiming that it doesn't have any medical benefit flies in the face of the available evidence.
On the legalising "unaltered weed" it would be a political call if you mean freely available like alcohol is. If you are talking about for people with serious conditions then it is simply a matter of humanity, do we want someone to suffer or help them.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/12/04/01016-20181204ARTFIG00285-la-prostitution-des-cites-a-quadruple-en-deux-ans.php
My view is that the way they operate isn’t far off being a cartel.
https://order-order.com/2018/12/15/watch-brexit-film-extended-trailer/
It looks like a pretty good film
Brexit, of whatever flavour, isn't going to impoverish the UK overnight - though a no deal Brexit followed by a Corbyn government would be a damn good effort in that direction. What it will do is shave a bit off our growth rate; make us less resilient in bouncing back from recessions etc.
Citing deals as evidence is quite beside the point. It's the ones which don't happen over the next five to ten years that matter.
I'm not sure I agree. 'You'd have to be on weed to vote for them' virtually writes itself as a soundbite....
It isn't however doing anyone any favours when discussion of such matters spirals into the sort of nighttime anti-Islamic or white supremacist rants we sometimes see on this site, and therefore needs to be tackled with analysis rather than hyperbole (such as your opening "end of democracy").
We also need to try hard to approach the subject neutrally in respect of "our" identities and "other" identities. Opposing political favour to one set of identities by advocating or defending the interests of another set is as much identity politics as the original.
(With apologies to King George V and Charles' cousin Samuel.)
settig aside the obvious insults Im beginning to wonder if JC Juncker has early stage parkinsons
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6505585/Jean-Claude-Drunker-misses-step-takes-tumble.html
https://tinyurl.com/y9wlzy4c
Two UK rail suppliers to major projects such as HS1 and Crossrail have admitted to operating an illegal cartel for almost seven years with the goal of increasing prices and reducing competition in the drainage market.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) provisionally found that the two companies – Derbyshire-based Stanton Bonna Concrete Ltd and Somerset-based CPM Group Ltd – broke competition law by holding regular secret meetings to set up and operate an illegal cartel.
I personally believe that there are pharmacologically active elements within marijuana which have medical benefits.
But if you are going to approve them as medicines - with all the regulatory implications - then you need RCT data to do so. The regulations are there to protect patients.
As it happens the U.K. government has been impressively creative with a regulatory swerve they have come up with (sorry don’t know if it is public so can’t share the details).
But free access like you suggest would be unethical. Sick people need professional medical care.
David Cameron has been proven tragically right about him, he's been a calamitous appointment in just about every conceivable way.
I imagine there must have been worse candidates out there but it's hard to think who they could have been.
Mr. B2, you're right, there are a range of potential explanations for Juncker's behaviour. Wine, whisky, vodka, brandy, the list goes on.
There was a R4 discussion a day or two ago with someone who grew up in Scandinavia and said that what she described as the traditional ethos that the state would look after you and you shouldn't feel close to your parents (she exagerrated in my view, but never mind) was having trouble with immigrants who were keen on close-knit families and deference to the elderly. I've met people who dislike mass immigration but rather like some of the cultural values, such as Muslim aversion to alcohol.
I think that a poll on "Is identity with your country very important to you?" would be interesting and would show up quite dramatic differences by age and nationality.
Obviously the Lib Dems are already on board. I think potential opposition would melt away if the Tories come out in favour, in terms political parties anyway. I'm sure the Daily Mail or some of the more reactionary types could complain but given its quasi legal status at the moment most people wouldn't actually notice the difference once its done.
But, for example, Germany forced us to change the patent box. Bringing that back would massively boost the industry
My problem with medical use of weed is the risk/benefit analysis, or rather the lack of it. Registered drugs have side-effects as well as benefits; before being registered, this needs to be assessed. That's why the 'benefits' need to be seen to be real in scientific studies.
If this goes ahead, I await the first major law-suit against the suppliers. I worked for Roche, in toxicology, for more than 16 years during the heyday of the benzos. They, like many drugs, are receptor-mediated, and thus rebound can occur. Some people will have idiosyncratic reactions to any drug. I worry this is politicians going for the popular and ignoring the unforeseen (for them) consequences.
Although I never made marketing decisions, I'd have always erred on the cautious side. Public opinion is fickle, and being on the right side now is no guarantee.
Edit: By all means, accelerate the process, but keep a process.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/medical-cannabis-uk-prescriptions-legal-explained-benefits-sajid-javid-a8466236.html
This is a pretty good primer
That is not going to do us any good.
A very pleasant surprise. Small. Beautifully designed. Cosmopolitan with something of the lingering socialist spirit of Dom Mintoff. Cheap transport on boats cars buses and motorised bikes. Free entry to galleries museums. Excellent and relatively inexpensive restaurants. Full employment with a young and lively vibe. The atmosphere reminded me of Arles.
I was told that since they joined the euro in 2008 their ecconomy has gone from strength to strength and the innovative EU financed projects are there for all to see.
A great positive advert for the EU.
The BigFirms also have the advantage that they big enough to sue if something does go wrong.
There are plenty of more dysfunctional markets than audit. This is a knee jerk reaction by politicians angry at Carillion.
The problem with the CMA. is that it is too eclectic. For capitalism to work effectively, you need strong co petition and primacy of consumer interests. The CMA has no mandate to help deliver this. It needs to be overhauled. If consumer interests were paramount, utilities like power gen and also rail franchises would be run very differently.
The only other explanation that makes sense is some grand conspiracy of doctors and sick people all pretending it has a medical benefit who have enlisted the the help of scientists.
TBH for people with serious conditions the downsides of weed are nothing compared to the relief. If the are medicines available that work better than we should definitely use them.
But if there is someone with a serious debilitating condition who marijuana provides relief to that other medicines can't or can't without severe side effects then of course we don't torture them by restricting access. If people want to work to create medicine from it that is great but you don't just leave the person unable unable to have any quality of life in the meantime when we have it available.
I was actually thinking of worse than this but for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgDhsv5Jmmc
The downsides of marijuana are pretty well known, it must be one of the worlds most widely used drugs. Looking at the difference it makes for the guy above and taking into account that alcohol is actually worse for you would you suggest the guy with Parkinson above would be better off drinking a couple of shots or suffering like he was?
By all means we should do as much testing as we can but the reasons for holding marijuana back from people with the most serious conditions are false, it does them far more good than harm.
🤣😀😎😄
The amount of data they shift is truly mind-boggling, and there seems to be research into just managing the data produced, yet alone the research that creates the data.
Bush's theory on Labours actions.
Basically close to what not_on_fire said.
I think there is a medical benefit from some molecules within marijuana. There are cannabinoid based pharmaceuticals that have been approved based on randomised clinical trials.
However there have not (as far as I am aware) been statistically significant RCTs on marijuana itself. There are also real problems around quality and consistency of the product. As a result there is no sound basis for approving marijuana as a medical product: at the moment your argument is “some sick people used marijuana and felt better” without excluding the possibility it was a placebo effect, random chance, or some other factor.
Of course you can make an argument for allowing access to marijuana for sick patients with no alternative. But let’s not pretend this is based on science or is part of the medical regulatory framework (I know it’s frustratingly slow at times but it is there for a reason). It’s simply a political decision.
Nowhere near enough tattoos. Come to think of it If it wasn't for so many young people and the absence of Conservative associations and the lack of sunshine I'd have thought I was in Ludlow.
If we No Deal Brexit, it will represent the biggest fuck up of diplomocy since [Morris Dancer to insert example from about 3,000 years ago].
"We have the Brits exactly where we want them. Their only option is to crash out and they would never....FUUUUUUUUUCK! That crazy woman is actually going to crash out....."
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1074941863273119744
Then Roger could have complained about overcrowded streets, shabby buildings and fat Maltese littering the beaches.