YouGov finds that just 40% of the youngest voters support the monarchy. – politicalbetting.com

kle4 said:

ohnotnow said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.

http://cannabisproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mahamad-et-al.-2020-Availability-retail-price-and-potency-of-legal-and-illegal-cannabisin-Canada-after-recreational-cannabis-legalisation.pdf

I'm often baffled why the government doesn't legalise cannabis. There must be an eye-watering amount of tax sitting there for the taking (not to mention savings on police/court time).

Well, even though plenty of places are now legalising it after studies (and so the 'we need to wait for more medical info' crowd are wrong), many would still see it as unacceptable behaviour

I doubt the police use up much time though. I pass people openly smoking weed in the street and they cannot be hard to track down.

I wasn't thinking police time in the sense of a regular bobby arresting a smoker on the street - but there must (I assume) be a decent whack of time going into investigating and prosecuting gangs/smugglers/larger-scale dealers. And then being sat around court houses waiting to give evidence.

wooliedyed said:

Scott_xP said:

"We met at 10:30pm last night and we've been together throughout the whole thing."

Jack and Zoe, two strangers who met in the queue to see the Queen lying in state, tell @MinnieStephC4 they're now planning to watch the Queen's funeral together on Monday. https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1571169879713013761/video/1

I absolutely love him talking about it being 'sombre' on Monday with a fuck off big 'totally getting laid' grin on his face.

They're going to screw each other senseless tonight.

Casino_Royale said:

wooliedyed said:

Scott_xP said:

"We met at 10:30pm last night and we've been together throughout the whole thing."

Jack and Zoe, two strangers who met in the queue to see the Queen lying in state, tell @MinnieStephC4 they're now planning to watch the Queen's funeral together on Monday. https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1571169879713013761/video/1

I absolutely love him talking about it being 'sombre' on Monday with a fuck off big 'totally getting laid' grin on his face.

They're going to screw each other senseless tonight.

Its not even a subtle undertone in that interview.

Edit - and then he finds out she likes to smoke a pipe in the bath after sex and it all gets hella weird

IshmaelZ said:

kle4 said:

ohnotnow said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.

http://cannabisproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mahamad-et-al.-2020-Availability-retail-price-and-potency-of-legal-and-illegal-cannabisin-Canada-after-recreational-cannabis-legalisation.pdf

I'm often baffled why the government doesn't legalise cannabis. There must be an eye-watering amount of tax sitting there for the taking (not to mention savings on police/court time).

Well, even though plenty of places are now legalising it after studies (and so the 'we need to wait for more medical info' crowd are wrong), many would still see it as unacceptable behaviour

I doubt the police use up much time though. I pass people openly smoking weed in the street and they cannot be hard to track down.

Oooh, "after studies," by third parties. Must be fine, then. No need for further research.

Read this

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-weed-became-new-oxycontin-marijuana-psychosis-addiction

The link between high strength cannabis and psychosis is about as well established as tobacco smoking - lung cancer. What we should be doing is learning from other peoples' mistakes.

I gave up smoking cannabis in the early 2000s because it suddenly jumped in strength. Back when I started smoking as a kid in the 90s, it was a mild, giggly high - very comparable to being drunk. It was a sociable high, too. You'd want to chat and joke and have fun with your mates. Something changed I would say around 2003-ish. All of a sudden the only weed available was "hydroponic" stuff that two tokes on would render you unable to talk or move for half an hour or so, and all you could do was watch telly "monged out" which was no fun at all.

I'm betting there is probably a decent market for the mild, slightly drunken, giggly weed of the past, which I might actually prefer to a couple of pints. The type of full-strength, chemical cosh weed of the last couple of decades is the difference between small beer and the horrors of gin lane. Legalization with proper strength advisory on the packet would probably see a lot of people choosing lighter varieties. The way far more beer is sold than special brew.

StillWaters said:

Gardenwalker said:

I wonder if you took a random British aristo family, whether the “quality” would be better or worse than the Windsors.

Only the late Queen, Princess Anne, William and Kate really cut the mustard,

The others are either quite notably thick, feckless and useless.

The more I’ve seen of Edward the more impressed I’ve been. He’s a little beta, possibly, but he’s a kind man who serves diligently. I’d also put the Gloucesters in the credit column.

The Gloucesters > the Kents

Peter Phillips was once 5th in line which was also Beatrices top position #random facts

thart said:

You could make the argument that does democracy even work properly when a large group of people many who have been out of the workforce for 20 to 30 years consistently swing elections

Depends whether you value wisdom and experience or not.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MoonRabbit said:

algarkirk said:

MoonRabbit said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MoonRabbit said:

Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.

I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.

Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.

Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MoonRabbit said:

Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.

I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.

Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.

Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.

Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.

Oh please.

Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one,
“The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”

or the real one.

“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.

Starmer has to act today.

I am completely opposed to Lewis, and my main issue is the effect people like him have on the chance of a Labour government being elected when we need one.

But in a constitutional democratic monarchy there has to be wriggle room. It is fact that parliamentary legislation determines the succession to the crown, also a fact that parliament could legislate the crown away. (Also a fact that it won't, so let's not panic)

I therefore accept that you have to allow the creative space for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown as constituted. It's the price of our excellent, much loved, ambiguous, utterly unreasonable constitutional settlement.

SKS is the big victim here.

I don’t usually disrespect posts as much as I’m about to disrespect yours, so I’m saying sorry up front, Algy.

But your post was gibberish. creative wriggleroom for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown?

What do you think the crown is? Someone who walks corgi’s, or the law of the land?

Gobby Clive has de oathed himself. Starmer has to act to try and limit the fun Tory’s are about have with this.

How much fun will the party led by former republican Liz Truss have? I'm guessing Number 10 will let sleeping dogs lie.

Someone other than Truss should make the case. Whoever her equivalent of Michael Fallon is.

I know the livestream has been broadcasting the 'silence' in the hall, but I wasn't ready for the news channel broadcasting 20 mins of quiet

wooliedyed said:

StillWaters said:

Gardenwalker said:

I wonder if you took a random British aristo family, whether the “quality” would be better or worse than the Windsors.

Only the late Queen, Princess Anne, William and Kate really cut the mustard,

The others are either quite notably thick, feckless and useless.

The more I’ve seen of Edward the more impressed I’ve been. He’s a little beta, possibly, but he’s a kind man who serves diligently. I’d also put the Gloucesters in the credit column.

The Gloucesters > the Kents

The Duke of Kent is a good egg but has been largely retired for a long time. Prince Michael and his wife are terrible people.

The political big read is up. Details on the mini budget, how Truss has scrapped the No 10 morning meeting, Jacob Rees-Mogg's curious begging letter and tensions between No 10 and the palace over political stories during the mourning period
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/growth-or-bust-can-liz-trusss-bold-gamble-pay-off-9dh8w73vq

jonny83 said:

StillWaters said:

Gardenwalker said:

I wonder if you took a random British aristo family, whether the “quality” would be better or worse than the Windsors.

Only the late Queen, Princess Anne, William and Kate really cut the mustard,

The others are either quite notably thick, feckless and useless.

The more I’ve seen of Edward the more impressed I’ve been. He’s a little beta, possibly, but he’s a kind man who serves diligently. I’d also put the Gloucesters in the credit column.

Sophie has grown into her role and comes across pretty down to earth from what I have seen.

100% agree. And they’ve raised two very nice and normal kids

thart said:

kyf_100 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.

Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.

It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?

In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children

So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong

He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.

Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.

200k views on this video so far and Youtube seem quite intensely relaxed about it staying up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFu8P7teOt8

Of course the age of consent varies from country to country...some countries it is 14....US is weird as there is a lot of sexual freedom but relatively high age of consent

So goes the argument of the sweaty nonce supporters club

This tweet understates the scoop in the full thread. The UK Prime Minister's Chief of Staff *signed a proffer* with the FBI and is now a collaborating witness after previously being a subject of the investigation. And this all happened only a few months ago.
https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1571186751523225601
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183835609534466

Leon said:

I have gays on my case. Yet again

We always suspected as such buy an alternative bag if you are not ready to come out

IshmaelZ said:

kyf_100 said:

IshmaelZ said:

kle4 said:

ohnotnow said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.

http://cannabisproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mahamad-et-al.-2020-Availability-retail-price-and-potency-of-legal-and-illegal-cannabisin-Canada-after-recreational-cannabis-legalisation.pdf

I'm often baffled why the government doesn't legalise cannabis. There must be an eye-watering amount of tax sitting there for the taking (not to mention savings on police/court time).

Well, even though plenty of places are now legalising it after studies (and so the 'we need to wait for more medical info' crowd are wrong), many would still see it as unacceptable behaviour

I doubt the police use up much time though. I pass people openly smoking weed in the street and they cannot be hard to track down.

Oooh, "after studies," by third parties. Must be fine, then. No need for further research.

Read this

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-weed-became-new-oxycontin-marijuana-psychosis-addiction

The link between high strength cannabis and psychosis is about as well established as tobacco smoking - lung cancer. What we should be doing is learning from other peoples' mistakes.

I gave up smoking cannabis in the early 2000s because it suddenly jumped in strength. Back when I started smoking as a kid in the 90s, it was a mild, giggly high - very comparable to being drunk. It was a sociable high, too. You'd want to chat and joke and have fun with your mates. Something changed I would say around 2003-ish. All of a sudden the only weed available was "hydroponic" stuff that two tokes on would render you unable to talk or move for half an hour or so, and all you could do was watch telly "monged out" which was no fun at all.

I'm betting there is probably a decent market for the mild, slightly drunken, giggly weed of the past, which I might actually prefer to a couple of pints. The type of full-strength, chemical cosh weed of the last couple of decades is the difference between small beer and the horrors of gin lane. Legalization with proper strength advisory on the packet would probably see a lot of people choosing lighter varieties. The way far more beer is sold than special brew.

Quite so. I, or rather a friend of mine, is quite happy with largeish doses of psilocybe semilanceata but won't touch any form of cannabis now for exactly that reason, despite the one being class A and the other B.

A single dose of cubensis shared with friends did more to relieve my depression than years of therapy or any manner of prescription drugs I was given. That something utterly non-addictive and gives so much relief is classed in the same category as heroin and crack beggars belief.

I'm afraid that if you asked the over 40s whether they supported the monarchy when they were 21 years old, a very good number would say No. It can seem that the monarchy grows on one with age.

Re: Mark Fullbrook & background as to why the FBI?

(from August but non-paywall)

Sarawakreport.org - The implications of yesterday’s scandalous revelations about the relationship between Britain’s most powerful firm of political lobbyists and a fugitive Venezuelan banker charged with bribing US politicians have yet to be fully absorbed.

It is crystal clear from the criminal indictment, laid before the High Court in Puerto Rico on Thursday after the arrest of the former Governor Wanda Vazquez on bribery charges, that the UK company CT Group knew it was breaking US election laws by accepting a lucrative contract from a foreign national to help the Governor’s election campaign (she ultimately lost in the primary).

The banker, Julio Herrera-Velutini. who is on the run from his own country where he is charged with financial fraud, does not have US citizenship. This means that he is not allowed under US law to fund any election activities either in cash or in kind. . . .

SSI - Way more you can check out for yourselves.

https://www.sarawakreport.org/2022/08/the-uks-lobbying-lordships-racket-has-to-stop/

I can't believe Truss would hire a chief of staff with serious baggage so she must have done the necessary checks.

Unless she is completely mad.........

nico679 said:

It’s bizarre how in what would appear a much more liberal and less religious UK the subject of cannabis legalization goes nowhere whilst across the pond many US states have legalized it . Not just blue states but also in Montana .

In the UK we have the worst of all possible worlds - the police will never prosecute you for it (heck, they wouldn't even want the paperwork on a caution if you were caught with a kilo of it), so it is effectively decriminalised.

But it is decriminalised in such a way supply is still left in the hands of the gangs and still favours pushing extra-extra-strength harmful stuff that is more addictive and potent.

Far better to actually license and regulate rather than decriminalise in the way we have.

Casino_Royale said:

I've probably spent 6-8 hours watching the live feed of the lying-in-state on BBC Parliament over the last few days.

The old veteran rigidly standing to attention, before delivering a perfect salute. An ordinary middle-aged woman curtesying and then silently mouthing "thank you" at the catafalque. A chubby tattooed man welling up and doing a deep bow. The ex-Gurka genuflecting whilst doing a buddist prayer to her. Some ladies totally distraught by the sight, and needing to be escorted through. The absolutely metronomic regulatory of the guard change every 20 minutes, like a perfectly kept train timetable, with the banging of the staff on the ancient stone of Westminster Hall and the perfectly executed ritual in otherwise near total silence.

I can't explain why I find it so addictive, I just do.

We got in at 9am so 13 hours. Saw the guards changing - there are 2 police now, I guess after yesterday.

First thought walking down the stairs was not to do something stupid. Then my focus really went to the beefeaters and guardsman who were so stock still that they looked madam tussauds models

After the guard changed we went together and both bowed. I expected to feel a lot more emotional than I did. I think the fact that it was covered with the cloth made it look a lot more like a museum artifact than a coffin.

thart said:

Andy_JS said:

thart said:

You could make the argument that does democracy even work properly when a large group of people many who have been out of the workforce for 20 to 30 years consistently swing elections

Depends whether you value wisdom and experience or not.

My experience is the wisdom of most old people is severely limited. They have never fought in wars and have experienced 60 to 70 years of rising prosperity fot thrmselves...that colours their outlook...most still think property prices are as cheap as the 70s

You really do not a clue

I and my family sheltered under a steel table in our house in Manchester when one of Hitler's bombs stopped overhead and we were petrified as it fell to ground killing 6 of our neighbours

We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married

Indeed life was not anything like the nonsense you state and frankly your posts are intended to be divisive and I have said in the past you are best ignored as you seek division

I really feel for Edward's boy, 15, standing vigil for his grandmother. Kudos to him. Tough losing a grannie at that age - and then mourning publicly.

I know they all wanted to do this and it is only for a few minutes. But, not for the first time, I feel there is something cruel in the way we expect to view other people at a time of grief and shock and sadness when a part of them must want to just curl up under the duvet and wish it weren't happening.

It's at times like these when you realise that the performing bear aspect of monarchy comes at some cost to real human beings just like us.

Jim_Miller said:

Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".

It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.

And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )

From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)

Don't think it was marijuana that Pete Holmes ingested. More likely it was ibogaine, which fans of Hunter S. Thompson will remember from his epic "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail".

Which is why he came in THIRD in the primary, and was thus eliminated from general election ballot, behind both Ann Davison AND an advocate of not just defund the police, but also abolish the jails.

As for Davison, I agree she'd doing a better job than her predecessor as City Attorney, in line with what she campaigned on, and why she got elected DESPITE her Republican connection. AND why yours truly was one of the majority of Seattle voters last year who voted for her.

Large part of her success (so far) is that she is NOT pursing a overtly partisan agenda (ditto) but rather applying herself to doing her job.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

I've probably spent 6-8 hours watching the live feed of the lying-in-state on BBC Parliament over the last few days.

The old veteran rigidly standing to attention, before delivering a perfect salute. An ordinary middle-aged woman curtesying and then silently mouthing "thank you" at the catafalque. A chubby tattooed man welling up and doing a deep bow. The ex-Gurka genuflecting whilst doing a buddist prayer to her. Some ladies totally distraught by the sight, and needing to be escorted through. The absolutely metronomic regulatory of the guard change every 20 minutes, like a perfectly kept train timetable, with the banging of the staff on the ancient stone of Westminster Hall and the perfectly executed ritual in otherwise near total silence.

I can't explain why I find it so addictive, I just do.

We got in at 9am so 13 hours. Saw the guards changing - there are 2 police now, I guess after yesterday.

First thought walking down the stairs was not to do something stupid. Then my focus really went to the beefeaters and guardsman who were so stock still that they looked madam tussauds models

After the guard changed we went together and both bowed. I expected to feel a lot more emotional than I did. I think the fact that it was covered with the cloth made it look a lot more like a museum artifact than a coffin.

Well done Gareth.

In my experience, the emotion comes after - there was too much going on for my brain to fully process at the time and it took me time to digest.

The memory, weirdly, actually grows and becomes stronger afterwards.

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Jim_Miller said:

Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".

It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.

And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )

From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)

Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.

Drugs policy in the U.K. is a mess. Have met David Nutt several times and talks a lot of sense. Politicians make knee jerk decisions without ever understanding science about drugs and harms.

I remember Nutt was fired by Blair for coming to conclusions he didn’t like .

Jim_Miller said:

nico679 wonders why marijuana has been legalized in many American states. Three reasons occur to me: As Tom Wolfe explained in his curious collection, "In Our Time", too many children of wealthy people kept getting busted. (pp. 5-6)

And our journalists have been reluctant to describe the scientific findings on its ill effects. (As a group, they are much less diverse than journalists in the UK, as far as I can tell. There are, for example, no newspapers equivalent to your Telegraph and Daily Mail, for instance.)

And then there are somewhat stronger libertarian beliefs here.

Those libertarian beliefs don't seem to extend to having a relaxed attitude towards tobacco smoking and allowing 18 year olds to drink alcohol.

FrankBooth said:

I can't believe Truss would hire a chief of staff with serious baggage so she must have done the necessary checks.

Unless she is completely mad.........

I wonder. Might an ethics advisor help in such situations?

Poor old Lizzie will have to sort this out for herself. But this will be no problem because, as she put it so eloquently, she knows the difference between right and wrong.

** File under 'one to watch' **

Jim_Miller said:

nico679 wonders why marijuana has been legalized in many American states. Three reasons occur to me: As Tom Wolfe explained in his curious collection, "In Our Time", too many children of wealthy people kept getting busted. (pp. 5-6)

And our journalists have been reluctant to describe the scientific findings on its ill effects. (As a group, they are much less diverse than journalists in the UK, as far as I can tell. There are, for example, no newspapers equivalent to your Telegraph and Daily Mail, for instance.)

And then there are somewhat stronger libertarian beliefs here.

Plus fact (others may challenge this, but believe it is true) that legalization of marijuana in WA State has DECREASED access to pot by minors, while providing tax revenues to state and local governments, and legal business opportunities, for example in many agricultural communities. PLUS product sold legally is subject to regulation AND testing, to benefit of consumers and others indirectly affected.

Though I am personally biased!

IshmaelZ said:

nico679 said:

turbotubbs said:

Andy_JS said:

Jim_Miller said:

Before marijauna was legalized in Washington state, there were more "medical" marijuana outlets than Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle. You could walk into some of them, get diagnosed, pay the doctor, and walk out with a "prescription".

It was official city policy there not to prosecute marijuana use.

And on the day the state legalized it, the Seattle city attorney went out during his lunch hour and purchased some. Pete Holmes wasn't much of a city attorney, and was replaced at the last election by Ann Davison. (It's not a partisan position, but she had run earlier for lieutenant governor of the state, as a Republican. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Davison_(politician) )

From what I can tell from across Lake Washington, she is doing a far better job that he did. (It may be mean of me, but I can't help wondering whether he ingested enough marijuana to damage his ability to think clearly.)

Big mistake to legalise it in my opinion. We've made the right decision in the UK in keeping it illegal.

Drugs policy in the U.K. is a mess. Have met David Nutt several times and talks a lot of sense. Politicians make knee jerk decisions without ever understanding science about drugs and harms.

I remember Nutt was fired by Blair for coming to conclusions he didn’t like .

For saying horses are more dangerous than mdma. NB though he is a lsd and psilocybin kinda guy, says v little about cannabis.

Yes he strongly believes in the benefits of lsd and psilocybin, and currently lots of interest is firing up in this area, but it’s still a struggle to overcome the bullshit politics.

dixiedean said:

Goodness me Leicester City are poor.

On track to concede 119 goals this season

FrankBooth said:

I can't believe Truss would hire a chief of staff with serious baggage so she must have done the necessary checks.

Unless she is completely mad.........

Normal rules don't apply to them. So they think anyway, and we let them believe it for far too long before we finally get annoyed enough to hold them accountable.

TimS said:

Cyclefree said:

FrankBooth said:

I can't believe Truss would hire a chief of staff with serious baggage so she must have done the necessary checks.

Unless she is completely mad.........

I wonder. Might an ethics advisor help in such situations?

Poor old Lizzie will have to sort this out for herself. But this will be no problem because, as she put it so eloquently, she knows the difference between right and wrong.

** File under 'one to watch' **

She’s lucky this is happening during a busy news week. It’ll pass without trace. The people who notice are those who wouldn’t vote for her anyway.

So you think the FBI interviews the PM's CoS - and that's the end of it, for her & him?

Somehow doubt that.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

nico679 wonders why marijuana has been legalized in many American states. Three reasons occur to me: As Tom Wolfe explained in his curious collection, "In Our Time", too many children of wealthy people kept getting busted. (pp. 5-6)

And our journalists have been reluctant to describe the scientific findings on its ill effects. (As a group, they are much less diverse than journalists in the UK, as far as I can tell. There are, for example, no newspapers equivalent to your Telegraph and Daily Mail, for instance.)

And then there are somewhat stronger libertarian beliefs here.

Plus fact (others may challenge this, but believe it is true) that legalization of marijuana in WA State has DECREASED access to pot by minors, while providing tax revenues to state and local governments, and legal business opportunities, for example in many agricultural communities. PLUS product sold legally is subject to regulation AND testing, to benefit of consumers and others indirectly affected.

Though I am personally biased!

This is a topic I just can’t make my mind up about.

The pro legalisation bit of my brain says something along the lines above. In alcohol terms it’s like there’s a load of home distilled meths adulterated spirit being sold illegally and people are dying of it, so legalise and everyone will be sipping wine in pavement cafes.

The abolitionist in me says there are a lot of young people who don’t touch the stuff now because they’re terrified of being caught, but they’d happily take it if it were legal.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

TimS said:

Cyclefree said:

FrankBooth said:

I can't believe Truss would hire a chief of staff with serious baggage so she must have done the necessary checks.

Unless she is completely mad.........

I wonder. Might an ethics advisor help in such situations?

Poor old Lizzie will have to sort this out for herself. But this will be no problem because, as she put it so eloquently, she knows the difference between right and wrong.

** File under 'one to watch' **

She’s lucky this is happening during a busy news week. It’ll pass without trace. The people who notice are those who wouldn’t vote for her anyway.

So you think the FBI interviews the PM's CoS - and that's the end of it, for her & him?

Somehow doubt that.

I hope not, but if there were ever a week to bury bad news it’s this week.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married

With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.

Cars cause road accidents. Make cars a class A drug, now.

EPG said:

Cars cause road accidents. Make cars a class A drug, now.

Hard to smuggle one into a nightclub though?

noneoftheabove said:

EPG said:

Cars cause road accidents. Make cars a class A drug, now.

Hard to smuggle one into a nightclub though?

A kit car perhaps.

Just to add one more complexity to American drug policies, let me mention the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: "The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens.

But "generally applicable" bans frequently conflicted with Native American religious practice. Often, government projects required acquisition of sacred grounds necessary for Native American rituals.[8] Ritual peyote use infringed on the federal war on drugs. And the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which Congress had passed to protect tribal religious freedoms, lacked an enforcement mechanism."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

When two "Native Americans" were fired from a rehab clinic, after using peyote in a religious ceremony, Congress was outraged and passed the act - with extraordinarily wide support: "The Smith decision outraged the public. Groups representing all points on the political spectrum (from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Traditional Values Coalition) and a wide variety of religions (i.e. the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals) agreed that the law required reform, and recommended reinstating the Sherbert Test. In response, Congress passed the RFRA, unanimously in the House and 97-to-3 in the Senate. The bill was then signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton."

(Fortunately, the Aztec religion has few adherents in the US so, as far as I know, no one here has tried to legalize some of their more radical religious practices.)

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married

With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.

I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once.
I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age.
There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.

Biden 43% Trump 40%

RedfieldWilton
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1571167203709390853?s=20&t=z12Kntyrk4LOXldoSNXHbw

Jim_Miller said:

Just to add one more complexity to American drug policies, let me mention the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: "The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens.

But "generally applicable" bans frequently conflicted with Native American religious practice. Often, government projects required acquisition of sacred grounds necessary for Native American rituals.[8] Ritual peyote use infringed on the federal war on drugs. And the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which Congress had passed to protect tribal religious freedoms, lacked an enforcement mechanism."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

When two "Native Americans" were fired from a rehab clinic, after using peyote in a religious ceremony, Congress was outraged and passed the act - with extraordinarily wide support: "The Smith decision outraged the public. Groups representing all points on the political spectrum (from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Traditional Values Coalition) and a wide variety of religions (i.e. the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals) agreed that the law required reform, and recommended reinstating the Sherbert Test. In response, Congress passed the RFRA, unanimously in the House and 97-to-3 in the Senate. The bill was then signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton."

(Fortunately, the Aztec religion has few adherents in the US so, as far as I know, no one here has tried to legalize some of their more radical religious practices.)

Why do you write "Native Americans" in quotes? They weren't?

OR are you just distinguishing them from people of any ethnicity who happen to be born in USA?

noneoftheabove said:

TimS said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

nico679 wonders why marijuana has been legalized in many American states. Three reasons occur to me: As Tom Wolfe explained in his curious collection, "In Our Time", too many children of wealthy people kept getting busted. (pp. 5-6)

And our journalists have been reluctant to describe the scientific findings on its ill effects. (As a group, they are much less diverse than journalists in the UK, as far as I can tell. There are, for example, no newspapers equivalent to your Telegraph and Daily Mail, for instance.)

And then there are somewhat stronger libertarian beliefs here.

Plus fact (others may challenge this, but believe it is true) that legalization of marijuana in WA State has DECREASED access to pot by minors, while providing tax revenues to state and local governments, and legal business opportunities, for example in many agricultural communities. PLUS product sold legally is subject to regulation AND testing, to benefit of consumers and others indirectly affected.

Though I am personally biased!

This is a topic I just can’t make my mind up about.

The pro legalisation bit of my brain says something along the lines above. In alcohol terms it’s like there’s a load of home distilled meths adulterated spirit being sold illegally and people are dying of it, so legalise and everyone will be sipping wine in pavement cafes.

The abolitionist in me says there are a lot of young people who don’t touch the stuff now because they’re terrified of being caught, but they’d happily take it if it were legal.

Do such young people exist in significant numbers anywhere apart from the imaginations of their parents and grandparents?

When I was growing up I tried a limited range of drugs for a limited time span. I was concerned about the quality of the drugs, and even tangential involvement with the people who sold them but not particularly about getting caught.

A quarter of young people today already abstain from alcohol mainly because they are more concerned about their health. They are far more informed than previous generations.

The idea that there are loads of young people who would be addicted to drugs if they were
legal but not if they are illegal seems unlikely
to me. The exception would be if we went
completely free market and start allowing the
drugs as football team sponsors with
mainstream adverts all over the place. Sure, that would be stupid and have an impact.

You may be right. But I was one of them, not just because of the risk of being caught but the thought of how my parents would react.

Other things I didn’t dare do because my mother would have freaked include riding a motorbike and getting a tattoo.

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married

With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.

I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once.
I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age.
There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.

Forgoing an iphone won't get you very far. Nor will not going on holidays. Young people may not be scrimping and saving religiously, but prices should still not be as out of reach as they are.

No, I agree the prices are too high. But if you already have a phone, why get a new one? It’s a completely different mindset.

turbotubbs said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

We experienced rationing and really struggled on less than a £1,000 a year in the years after we married

With all due respect, that in of itself means nothing unless you can tell us the value of that £1,000 in today's money.

I am struck by my parents tales of having very little money back in the late sixties. Dad was in the police, but they were not flush. They went six months without going out once. Not once.
I get that times are different but I do hear younger folk moaning about not being able to buy houses and I sympathise a lot, but also sometimes you need to take hard choices. It’s not simple, for sure, but you have horse on here with his new iPhone wailing about not being able to get his own place and wonder. I also suspect the younger generations expect their first homes to be as nice as the ones they grew up in, and don’t realise what their parents went through at their age.
There are big issues with housing for sure, but people can do more to help themselves.

Gadgets are cheap now, holidays too. Houses not so much. (15% rise in the last year).

Its difficult to act like your parents when house to income ratio is ~6:1 compared to 2.5-3:1. And rent is so much higher.