Chav World 4 U!

[Daz Madrigal]

Kate Moss is taking up flying?

..can't she just quit drugs now and stop making a damn fool of herself?

Even worse...Pete Doherty is teaching her.

[piccione]

/////...can't she just quit drugs now and stop making a darn/it fool of herself?////

Err why should she Daz? She can afford her addiction - in fact playing bad girl/bad boy pays off nicely for them doesn‘t it? One contract lost due to drug use, and two new ones gained....

On another thread (can’t remember where) you said you couldn’t imagine why Sands or anyone should decide to be teetotal. At least Sands is being consistent (…if /altogether/ completely deluded on the issue).

Funny that - police having wasted precious time and money swabbing youngsters for minute traces of cannabis on their hands before allowing them into clubs, just to let the 'clean' ones go in and get wrecked on vast amounts of ‘drug alcohol’.

No double standards and mixed message there to young peeps....

And so the saying goes:

“For every complex question there is an answer that is simple, clear - and wrong.”

Did you hear that Sands…?

[Daz Madrigal]

Oh you're taking it a tad seriously.

Well Kate can stand up for herself I suspect and copes reasonably well in a female Keef respect. I'd more worried about Brit actually hacking off her hair and making a loon of herself but..thats life.

Its even worse to be as dumb as her but without the talent.

[Daz Madrigal]

piccione said:

/////...can't she just quit drugs now and stop making a darn/it fool of herself?////

Err why should she Daz? She can afford her addiction - in fact playing bad girl/bad boy pays off nicely for them doesn‘t it? One contract lost due to drug use, and two new ones gained....

On another thread (can’t remember where) you said you couldn’t imagine why Sands or anyone should decide to be teetotal. At least Sands is being consistent (…if /altogether/ completely deluded on the issue).

Funny that - police having wasted precious time and money swabbing youngsters for minute traces of cannabis on their hands before allowing them into clubs, just to let the 'clean' ones go in and get wrecked on vast amounts of ‘drug alcohol’.

No double standards and mixed message there to young peeps....

And so the saying goes:

“For every complex question there is an answer that is simple, clear - and wrong.”

Did you hear that Sands…?

Well a lot of those kids are drinking alcohol..without getting completely "wrecked" as you put it.

The idea put forward by the liberal 95% that 24 hr Drinking will not lead to more drinking is as daft as the people who put the idea forward are. I wouldn't normally put my dear friend, Wivens, in that bag but sadly his liberal leanings have led him astray. Alcoholism has risen greatly.

Anyone who thinks 24 drinking doesn't result in MORE drinking is certifiably mad....but then they voted Blair in so...erm..hey THEY ARE MAD!.

Cya when the Pub closes, Piccy!

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

/////...can't she just quit drugs now and stop making a darn/it fool of herself?////

Err why should she Daz? She can afford her addiction - in fact playing bad girl/bad boy pays off nicely for them doesn‘t it? One contract lost due to drug use, and two new ones gained....

On another thread (can’t remember where) you said you couldn’t imagine why Sands or anyone should decide to be teetotal. At least Sands is being consistent (…if /altogether/ completely deluded on the issue).

Funny that - police having wasted precious time and money swabbing youngsters for minute traces of cannabis on their hands before allowing them into clubs, just to let the 'clean' ones go in and get wrecked on vast amounts of ‘drug alcohol’.

No double standards and mixed message there to young peeps....

And so the saying goes:

“For every complex question there is an answer that is simple, clear - and wrong.”

Did you hear that Sands…?

Yes Piccione I am deluded in thinking that our vulnerable kids should not get cirrhosis of the liver at 30 or O.D. on drugs or drive a car while under the influence but not everybody has the same clarity of thought as you.

Your answer to put every possible temptation in the path of our youth and make it so easily accessible and cheap is obviously the right thing to do. I see it all now. How could I have been so deluded? Why not just send them all to war in Iraq where they can get an even greater buzz from killing people?

[Nathan deGargoyle]

Sandy, just think of it as evolution in action.

[piccione]

Daz

////Well a lot of those kids are drinking alcohol..without getting completely "wrecked" as you put it.////

Sands will be so relieved to hear that.....

////The idea put forward by the liberal 95% that 24 hr Drinking will not lead to more drinking is as daft as the people who put the idea forward are.////

In the current drinking climate it doesn’t really matter either way.

////Cya when the Pub closes, Piccy!////

I hope that wasn’t a subtle, ‘big brotherly’ reprimand.

Just popped down to the pub to catch the last of 6 Nations.
And walked home in a straight line....

[piccione]

Sands

Jeezzz you’re making it sound as if I was advocating for drugs to be force-fed to kids in junior schools....

And you /really/ should let go of this media-hyped, fear-of-the-unknown driven horror vision of drug use=heroin addiction. Problem (heroin/crack) users are the /minority/. And /some/ of this minority will cause harm to society by committing (mainly petty) crime. The majority of drug users take drugs controlled and recreationally.

Young people are /by very far/ more likely to die in a RTA or by non-drug-related suicide than they are from dying of an OD. Of the 5292 suicides committed in England and Wales in 2000, a quarter (so just over 1300) were drug-related, about half of which were committed by using /prescribed/ drugs - so drugs /not/ controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I leave it to you to compare the ‘rest’ figure to that of ‘other’ causes of death. Yet I can’t hear you calling for a ban on motor vehicles....

Keeping it all in perspective is not to say that the fact that drugs have become an integral part of our culture isn’t worrying. But the fact that this is so has nothing to do with ‘too lenient’ drug laws (…the UK has the strictest drugs policy in the whole of Europe, and the biggest drug problem. Doesn’t that tell you anything at all?). It’s got to do with the fact that we are applying the same tactics and ‘solutions’ as we used to 20 years ago /despite/ the fact that society and patterns of drug use have changed.

In 1998 a UN declaration set up a 10-year-plan with the target of ‘significantly reducing’ illicit drugs by the year 2008. And /this/ is the problem: A policy approach (nationally and internationally) setting ludicrous, unrealistic targets that are totally and utterly unachievable, and even worse - that back-fire on us big time, because of completely futile investments of time, money and effort. The reluctance to accept that drugs are here to stay is a political issue - shying away from some tough but realistic and necessary political decisions, because it would ‘upset’ the electorate: the cosy middle-class voters who haven’t got the foggiest about the /real/ drug issue, but who base their ’knowledge’ on a complete myth. Head-in-the-sand tactics are renound for making things worse rather than better.

But myth or not, unfortunately there /are/ no quick-fix solutions, and day-dreaming and wishful thinking isn’t going to get us anywhere is it. The /real/ unpleasantness of the whole issue is that we don’t want to own up to the fact that we are /all/ part of the system encouraging (prescribed, legal and illicit) drug use - not only for entertainment, but also as a quick-fix solution for personal problems of various degrees.

/No/ law enforcement is going to change the fact that we celebrate the Kate Mosses and Pete Dohertys of this world, not just /despite/ but /for/ their drug use, that we laugh at the mate who ‘can’t take his drink’ or at the 'fun-spoiling', ‘anti-social’ teetotal. It isn’t going to change either the fact that we have reshaped society for good, that we have and still are alienating our youth, granting them more ‘freedom’ (i.e. /malign/ or /benign/ neglect?) because our ‘self-fulfilment’ and careers are more important. And lets not forget pharamceutical companies and the rest of the legal drug (and alcohol) industry amongst those with a self-interest....

As for driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol: It /is/ a criminal offence, like burglary, murder etc etc. You won’t prevent certain people from committing certain types of criminal offences. Unless you have some cunning plan up your sleeve for eliminating all crime as well as the whole illicit drug market Baldrick....

[Daz Madrigal]

It does if you work in an A & E Ward.

Its also sending out the wrong message, as is the idea of setting up Super Casino's in every town. Much as I'm libertarian I'm not prepared to pick pockets as greedily as the current Labour Govt., Piccione.

..now on your way and keep on the straight and narrow path, Sonny.



And don't have any mightmares..it really isn't that bad!

Evenin' All.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

Jeezzz you’re making it sound as if I was advocating for drugs to be force-fed to kids in junior schools....


And you /really/ should let go of this media-hyped, fear-of-the-unknown driven horror vision of drug use=heroin addiction. Problem (heroin/crack) users are the /minority/. And /some/ of this minority will cause harm to society by committing (mainly petty) crime. The majority of drug users take drugs controlled and recreationally.

Young people are /by very far/ more likely to die in a RTA or by non-drug-related suicide than they are from dying of an OD. Of the 5292 suicides committed in England and Wales in 2000, a quarter (so just over 1300) were drug-related, about half of which were committed by using /prescribed/ drugs - so drugs /not/ controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I leave it to you to compare the ‘rest’ figure to that of ‘other’ causes of death. Yet I can’t hear you calling for a ban on motor vehicles....

Keeping it all in perspective is not to say that the fact that drugs have become an integral part of our culture isn’t worrying. But the fact that this is so has nothing to do with ‘too lenient’ drug laws (…the UK has the strictest drugs policy in the whole of Europe, and the biggest drug problem. Doesn’t that tell you anything at all?). It’s got to do with the fact that we are applying the same tactics and ‘solutions’ as we used to 20 years ago /despite/ the fact that society and patterns of drug use have changed.

In 1998 a UN declaration set up a 10-year-plan with the target of ‘significantly reducing’ illicit drugs by the year 2008. And /this/ is the problem: A policy approach (nationally and internationally) setting ludicrous, unrealistic targets that are totally and utterly unachievable, and even worse - that back-fire on us big time, because of completely futile investments of time, money and effort. The reluctance to accept that drugs are here to stay is a political issue - shying away from some tough but realistic and necessary political decisions, because it would ‘upset’ the electorate: the cosy middle-class voters who haven’t got the foggiest about the /real/ drug issue, but who base their ’knowledge’ on a complete myth. Head-in-the-sand tactics are renound for making things worse rather than better.

But myth or not, unfortunately there /are/ no quick-fix solutions, and day-dreaming and wishful thinking isn’t going to get us anywhere is it. The /real/ unpleasantness of the whole issue is that we don’t want to own up to the fact that we are /all/ part of the system encouraging (prescribed, legal and illicit) drug use - not only for entertainment, but also as a quick-fix solution for personal problems of various degrees.

/No/ law enforcement is going to change the fact that we celebrate the Kate Mosses and Pete Dohertys of this world, not just /despite/ but /for/ their drug use, that we laugh at the mate who ‘can’t take his drink’ or at the 'fun-spoiling', ‘anti-social’ teetotal. It isn’t going to change either the fact that we have reshaped society for good, that we have and still are alienating our youth, granting them more ‘freedom’ (i.e. /malign/ or /benign/ neglect?) because our ‘self-fulfilment’ and careers are more important. And lets not forget pharamceutical companies and the rest of the legal drug (and alcohol) industry amongst those with a self-interest....

As for driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol: It /is/ a criminal offence, like burglary, murder etc etc. You won’t prevent certain people from committing certain types of criminal offences. Unless you have some cunning plan up your sleeve for eliminating all crime as well as the whole illicit drug market Baldrick....

Oh Feck hand me thee maple syrup will ya? Mr Waffle is back in town.

<<< And you /really/ should let go of this media-hyped, fear-of-the-unknown driven horror vision of drug use=heroin addiction. Problem (heroin/crack) users are the /minority/. And /some/ of this minority will cause harm to society by committing (mainly petty) crime. The majority of drug users take drugs controlled and recreationally. >>>

And most people who drink and drive do not Kill pedestrians either.

So let's not have any of these silly laws stopping drivers getting rat -arsed, shall we?

Is that your logic, Pic'n'Mix?

And/we/are/not/all/part/of/the/system/encouraging/drug/use.

Only pillocks do that.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

But the fact that this is so has nothing to do with ‘too lenient’ drug laws (…the UK has the strictest drugs policy in the whole of Europe, and the biggest drug problem. Doesn’t that tell you anything at all?).

Yes it tells me you talking out of thee back-passage.

www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/09so.htm

<<< Not all of Europe has been swept up in the trend to liberalize drug laws. Sweden, Finland, and Greece have the strictest policies against drugs in Europe. Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely supported within the country and among the various political parties. Drug use is relatively low in the Scandinavian countries. >>>

<<< Furthermore, drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased twofold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates. >>>

<<< The United Kingdom has also experimented with the relaxation of drug laws. Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts. According to political scientist James Q. Wilson, “a youthful drug culture emerged with a demand for drugs far different from that of the older addicts.” Many addicts chose to boycott the program and continued to get their heroin from illicit drug distributors. The British Government’s experiment with controlled heroin distribution, says Wilson, resulted in, at a minimum, a 30-fold increase in the number of addicts in ten years >>>

[piccione]

Sands

////Oh Feck hand me thee maple syrup will ya?////

You wanna get these constant sugar cravings checked out mate....

Well well I never....the US Drug Enforcement Agency!
Now there is an unbiased source if ever I saw one. What an exemplary piece of self-defensive propaganda....

The DEA is /the/ organisation born out of the media-hyped fear culture, and nowadays they are rather busy defending themselves against the fact that their hard-line approach on the War on Drugs has been futile. Despite massive investments of /billions/ (starting of with a $350 million budget in 1971, gone up to $30billion by 2006 - and that is only the budget /directly/ invested into the campaign - the overall economic impact is drastically higher than that), they manage to seize only a tiny fragment of the drugs and drug-related assets trafficked into the US annually.

No wonder they are err ‘a little’ under pressure....

////Not all of Europe has been swept up in the trend to liberalize drug laws. Sweden, Finland, and Greece have the strictest policies against drugs in Europe. Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely supported within the country and among the various political parties. Drug use is relatively low in the Scandinavian countries./////

“Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely accepted within the country” - I like that! It /was/ yes, as it still was amongst the population of other European countries around the time of the political shift towards harm reduction with the Frankfurt Resolution in 1993 - which was based on the /acknowledgement/ that restrictive strategies hadn‘t worked btw.
But whereas in other countries this approach gained public support, it didn’t in Sweden /at the same time/. The policy shift towards harm reduction came at a crucial political time in Sweden, and it wasn’t in the political interest of the conservatives to alienate the electorate by going against their ‘wishes’, and along with the European model. Instead they supported and enforced the existing public zero-tolerance approach, despite the fact that Sweden’s heavy drug use had increased by 40% over the past 15 years. Not only did they launch a media-led crusade against the Frankfurt Resolution on a national level, but vigorously tried to promoted (unsuccessfully) their counter-document, the Stockholm Declaration of the ‘drug-free’ utopia in the rest of Europe.

But this has been changing since 1997. Looking at other, European models the Swedish public started to question the issue of a ‘drug-free‘, zero-tolerance approach - as to whether it wasn’t a somewhat unrealistic and ludicrous concept - a bit like a ‘peace on earth’ utopia. To cut a long-story short (…and before you OD on maple syrup again - I hope it isn’t too late already....), this has lead to a shift in Sweden’s approach (current policy framework up to end 2007) with a focus on ‘demand reduction’ strategies.

As to lesser problems with heavy drug use as a whole, there is /major/ difference in Sweden (as is in other Scandinavian countries): They have a /very/ creative approach on youth policy, i.e. they don’t alienate their youth as we do but fully integrate them. And /outrageously/ they actually grant youngsters their youth and don’t punish them for youthful behaviour! So ‘simply’ by the means of their integrative youth policy, the Swedes do more against drug youth by young peeps than we ever will. Unless we’d consider learning a lesson from the Swedes...

Men jag betvivla du verkligen vilja veta. Jag stänga upp nu...

/////Furthermore, drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased twofold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates. /////

Yes how very convenient - for the DEA....

What they ‘accidentally’ forgot to mention are the facts that:

1. Opioid misuse (i.e. problem use) has steadily declined in the NL /since/ 1996, and stabilised since around 1999/2000.
2. The NL have the /lowest/ death rate amongst problem users in Europe because of high investment into harm reduction rather than restrictive measures (similar situation with Portugal where illicit drug use was decriminalised in 1999).
3. The UK, France, Spain (and some others) have the /highest/ rates of cannabis use in Europe - /not/ the NL.
4. The USA have /double/ the rates of cannabis, opiod and cocaine (incl. crack) use of the whole of Europe, and the starting age of drug use is lower.
5. The term ‘use’ includes /all/ users - one-off, sporadic, recreational and compulsive.

////Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts.…..etc etc….////

So much is true - in fact opiods were given out with great complacency, like sweets.

But there’s a bit of a history to this: Throughout the 1920s/30s opiod abuse was the pastime of an influential upper and middle class, who had no interest in any regulation. Hence why this complacency lasted until the early 60s, when the very different picture that had developed in the US (based on opioid prohibition) eventually resulted in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in the UK.

This is hardly the same as saying ‘the UK experimented with controlled heroin distribution’. Mr Wilson - another ‘unbiased’ source - might want to take a look at some of the more modern European concepts of controlled heroin distribution, which have been pretty successful, /especially/ since heroin is less addictive than methadone. But I doubt he will - or you.

[gus2]

piccione said:

Sands

////Oh Feck hand me thee maple syrup will ya?////

You wanna get these constant sugar cravings checked out mate....

Well well I never....the US Drug Enforcement Agency!
Now there is an unbiased source if ever I saw one. What an exemplary piece of self-defensive propaganda....

The DEA is /the/ organisation born out of the media-hyped fear culture, and nowadays they are rather busy defending themselves against the fact that their hard-line approach on the War on Drugs has been futile. Despite massive investments of /billions/ (starting of with a $350 million budget in 1971, gone up to $30billion by 2006 - and that is only the budget /directly/ invested into the campaign - the overall economic impact is drastically higher than that), they manage to seize only a tiny fragment of the drugs and drug-related assets trafficked into the US annually.

No wonder they are err ‘a little’ under pressure....

////Not all of Europe has been swept up in the trend to liberalize drug laws. Sweden, Finland, and Greece have the strictest policies against drugs in Europe. Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely supported within the country and among the various political parties. Drug use is relatively low in the Scandinavian countries./////

“Sweden’s zero-tolerance policy is widely accepted within the country” - I like that! It /was/ yes, as it still was amongst the population of other European countries around the time of the political shift towards harm reduction with the Frankfurt Resolution in 1993 - which was based on the /acknowledgement/ that restrictive strategies hadn‘t worked btw.
But whereas in other countries this approach gained public support, it didn’t in Sweden /at the same time/. The policy shift towards harm reduction came at a crucial political time in Sweden, and it wasn’t in the political interest of the conservatives to alienate the electorate by going against their ‘wishes’, and along with the European model. Instead they supported and enforced the existing public zero-tolerance approach, despite the fact that Sweden’s heavy drug use had increased by 40% over the past 15 years. Not only did they launch a media-led crusade against the Frankfurt Resolution on a national level, but vigorously tried to promoted (unsuccessfully) their counter-document, the Stockholm Declaration of the ‘drug-free’ utopia in the rest of Europe.

But this has been changing since 1997. Looking at other, European models the Swedish public started to question the issue of a ‘drug-free‘, zero-tolerance approach - as to whether it wasn’t a somewhat unrealistic and ludicrous concept - a bit like a ‘peace on earth’ utopia. To cut a long-story short (…and before you OD on maple syrup again - I hope it isn’t too late already....), this has lead to a shift in Sweden’s approach (current policy framework up to end 2007) with a focus on ‘demand reduction’ strategies.

As to lesser problems with heavy drug use as a whole, there is /major/ difference in Sweden (as is in other Scandinavian countries): They have a /very/ creative approach on youth policy, i.e. they don’t alienate their youth as we do but fully integrate them. And /outrageously/ they actually grant youngsters their youth and don’t punish them for youthful behaviour! So ‘simply’ by the means of their integrative youth policy, the Swedes do more against drug youth by young peeps than we ever will. Unless we’d consider learning a lesson from the Swedes...

Men jag betvivla du verkligen vilja veta. Jag stänga upp nu...

/////Furthermore, drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased twofold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates. /////

Yes how very convenient - for the DEA....

What they ‘accidentally’ forgot to mention are the facts that:

1. Opioid misuse (i.e. problem use) has steadily declined in the NL /since/ 1996, and stabilised since around 1999/2000.
2. The NL have the /lowest/ death rate amongst problem users in Europe because of high investment into harm reduction rather than restrictive measures (similar situation with Portugal where illicit drug use was decriminalised in 1999).
3. The UK, France, Spain (and some others) have the /highest/ rates of cannabis use in Europe - /not/ the NL.
4. The USA have /double/ the rates of cannabis, opiod and cocaine (incl. crack) use of the whole of Europe, and the starting age of drug use is lower.
5. The term ‘use’ includes /all/ users - one-off, sporadic, recreational and compulsive.

////Until the mid-1960s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to certain classes of addicts.…..etc etc….////

So much is true - in fact opiods were given out with great complacency, like sweets.

But there’s a bit of a history to this: Throughout the 1920s/30s opiod abuse was the pastime of an influential upper and middle class, who had no interest in any regulation. Hence why this complacency lasted until the early 60s, when the very different picture that had developed in the US (based on opioid prohibition) eventually resulted in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in the UK.

This is hardly the same as saying ‘the UK experimented with controlled heroin distribution’. Mr Wilson - another ‘unbiased’ source - might want to take a look at some of the more modern European concepts of controlled heroin distribution, which have been pretty successful, /especially/ since heroin is less addictive than methadone. But I doubt he will - or you.

Well picc it looks to me like you done your research, poor old sandy has had to get his Old Holborn out (a terrible sight ;D) and roll a couple of cigs, you've buggerd him up alright. Care for a spliff to chase sandy the blues away.

gus

[piccione]

////Care for a spliff.....////

Cheers Angel pass it over.....
Careful that Sands doesn't grab it off you - it'll only give him the munchies and he'll end up stuffing his face with maple syrup again. I'm getting rather concerned about his binging. What do you think? He'll end up 'supersizing' himself....

[kipper]

Hand it over

Bogart