Chav World 4 U!

[sandywinder]

admin said:

If the perch is comfortable - perch away.

Risky. Talking about perches. What?

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

Its important not to dismiss the positive effects and usage of drugs whether Opiates, Cannabis and Alcohol.

..erm still waiting for the advantages of nocotine.

A substance, like a person, may have distinct and even contradictory aspects to its personality. Today ethyl alcohol, the drinkable species of alcohol, is a multifaceted entity; it may be social lubricant, sophisticated dining companion, cardiovascular health benefactor or agent of destruction. Throughout most of Western civilization's history, however, alcohol had a far different role. For most of the past 10 millennia, alcoholic beverages may have been the most popular and common daily drinks, indispensable sources of fluids and calories. In a world of contaminated and dangerous water supplies, alcohol truly earned the title granted it in the Middle Ages: aqua vitae, the "water of life." Potent evidence exists to open a window into a societal relationship with alcohol that is simply unimaginable today. Consider this statement, issued in 1777 by Prussia's Frederick the Great, whose economic strategy was threatened by importation of coffee: "It is disgusting to notice the increase in the quantity of coffee used by my subjects, and the amount of money that goes out of the country as a consequence. Everybody is using coffee; this must be prevented. His Majesty was brought up on beer, and so were both his ancestors and officers. Many battles have been fought and won by soldiers nourished on beer, and the King does not believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be relied upon to endure hardships in case of another war."

Surely a modern leader who urged alcohol consumption over coffee, especially by the military, would have his or her mental competence questioned. But only an eyeblink ago in historical time, a powerful head of government could describe beer in terms that make it sound like mother's milk. And indeed, that nurturing role may be the one alcohol played from the infancy of the West to the advent of safe water supplies for the masses only within the past century.

Yes they used to drink alcohol rather than water - which could lead to typhoid etc. But wasn't that alcohol mostly far less potent than today? Even children drank it. Hence 'small beer' - about 2% alcohol.

<<< The moderate consumption of alcohol, including beer, is associated with better health and greater longevity than is either abstaining or drinking heavily, although there is absolutely no proof of this.[18]Beer, like wine, is hormetic.[19]

Brewer's yeast is known to be a rich source of nutrients; therefore, as expected, beer can contain significant amounts of nutrients, including magnesium, selenium, potassium, phosphorus, biotin, and B vitamins. In fact, beer is sometimes referred to as "liquid bread".[20] Some sources maintain that filtered beer loses much of its nutrition.[21][22]

A 2005 Japanese study found that low alcohol beer may possess strong anti-cancer properties.[23] Another study found nonalcoholic beer to mirror the cardiovascular benefits associated with moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages.[24] However, much research suggests that the primary health benefit from alcoholic beverages comes from the alcohol they contain.[25] >>>

So not exactly a good reason to ban alcohol.

[sandywinder]

oldpunkette said:

Smoking makes you big and clever and attractive to the opposite sex.

D'uh Daz, i thought any fule know that.

And the more you drink the more attractive the opposite sex looks.

[Daz Madrigal]

Less potent?

Well they didn't have a choice of exotic belgian/german/scandinavian beer to choose from. So I doubt it was more than 4% which is fairly normal.

Drinking large amount of Beer is faintly ludicrous but then so is drinking Spirits. One wouldn't normally eagerly pour down 10 pints of water, which is basically what beer is.

You can tell a Whisky drinker a mile off..Charles Kennedy is ample proof of that - about 90% proof by the state of him. But what do you expect from the Scots?

[Daz Madrigal]

And if you smoke enough even Al Johnsons jokes seem hilarious, Thats why Dirks over there and not here..I think all that waccy baccy he smoked in the 60's affected his judgement.

Actually one point Piccione missed was the fact that smoking a few joints is even worse than cigarettes as a causal factor of Cancer. I mean..well you won't know this Sandy but you're supposed to inhale it deep into the lungs and keep it there for a few secs before exhaling.

Some exhale into a bottle and re inhale the smoke..

..its also more carcogenic.

[piccione]

Sands

///Now if you put all of these in prison for 40 years is ANYBODY really saying that it would not vastly reduce the drug problem?

Yes I am. And err…not just /me/ - the ‘megalomaniac’.

Sands I remind you again: Don’t just put that signature of yours under your posts for nothing – try and /utilize/ it from time to time. You might find that helpful: ‘No problem should be looked at in isolation’.

You are looking at the drug supply issue as if it was some petty pub chain that had branched out to a couple of cities in the UK.

The international illicit drug trade (especially that of opiates and coke - /tons/ of the stuff…) is a well-established and flourishing multi-billion ‘industry’, closely interlinked with the illegal arms trade, terrorism and other organized crime. It has /successfully/ built up a global co-operation involving legal and illegal financial bodies and even governmental institutions, using high-tech equipment and a very refined intelligence network.

And you are /seriously/ suggesting they’ll be sh*tting their pants and pack it all in because some copper in the UK nicked a couple of dealers for 40 odd years?

Jezus. Sands. And I mean – JEEEZZZUS!

They’ll be p*ssing themselves laughing -all the way to the bank- at our stupidity of further enforcing prohibition (see –again- the utterly F-A-I-L-E-D hard-line US approach), and at the prospect of /more/ profits - simply by having to hold their hands out.

/Get/ /real/ Sands. The illicit drug trade is a massive global enterprise that won’t be undermined or drained as long as long as we have prohibition.

Prohibition hasn’t only failed to cut supply, it has /actively/ /supported/ the spreading of drugs because: 1) the enormous profit incentives the a black market has created 2) many smack heads make easy money for financing their habit by becoming dealers themselves.

What will happen when your petty dealers go down for 40 years is that the prices will go up. That will not reduce demand but increase desperate means of financing drug habits – i.e. more crime. It will also have the effect that dealing will be driven further underground – hence become even less detectable. Desperate times ask for desperate measures – and /very/ creative measures at that. That’s how the whole drug trade managed to grow to such an err impressive size in the first place.

What also happens is that before ‘heroin’ reaches the ‘end-user, at /all/ levels of the black market it’s cut and adulterated with utter /sh*t/ in order to extend the profit margin. And by the time your average junkie gets hold of the stuff they’ll be shooting cement dust up their arms, f*cking their veins up, or worse – toxic drain cleaner....

[piccione]

Sands

////The reason for the term megalomania is that you reject out of hand any supporting evidence I provide but expect me to swallow all the twaddle that you spout.////

Right. I just follow /your/ lead shall I?

You can have as many /opinions/ and ‘believes’ as you like – and if they are well thought through and logical, I might even be persuaded. But only if they don’t ignore or contradict actual, proven facts. It’s not your opinions /as such/ I reject. I reject them as arguments (based on biased, popular media reporting) against undeniable facts evidenced over years, not only by /reality/ but also by the vast majority of independent experts and research.

The thing is Sands that I once thought as well that anything but prohibition was dangerous and unthinkable. But I have changed my mind quite radically over the years since I have recognized and accepted three main, /actual/ facts:

1) Drugs are here to stay (/because/ of the enormous international trade and demand the black market has created). To deny that is plain cowardice, ignorance - and highly dangerous - or politically driven propaganda.

2) Prohibitionist and ‘zero-tolerance’ drug policies on a whole are highly politically motivated. In fact they are so politically ambitious that /any/ sacrifice is deemed ‘acceptable’ along the way. Even that of the truth – which was the first casualties to drug prohibition when it was first introduced in America in the 1920s. And we still hold that lie upright some 80 odd years on.

3) While hard-line prohibitionists are falling over themselves with self-defensive excuses and sheer embarrassment over their failure, trying (in vain) to disguise the fact that they’ve actually made things worse, those who are in favour of radical policy changes and/or legalization/decriminalisation can provide clear evidence that clean, regulated supply of opiates to addicts helps to improve their physical health and life-style, cuts crime and drains the black market.

They have /by far/ the better founded and better evidenced arguments. So I had to give in. I’m not unreasonable....

///Now have you a very good reason for me to believe that your information is far more credible than that of many other sources?///

I’m not going to do your reading and research for you, neither /can/ I. But I can give you ‘a few’ tips if you would like to make a start. It would take you a good few months of thorough, full-time reading to go through /some/ of the ‘sources’ I can recommend.

///Maybe it is you who needs the 'idealogical detoxification' program to get rid of your omniscient beliefs.///

As I said: been there, done that..... And I /did/ get rid of my ‘omniscient beliefs’. I rely on plain and simple /facts/ now.

[piccione]

Sands

///But as I am not a patronising pillock I will not suggest it.///

You might be surprised how patronising you come across when you try and suggest I should disregard the clear evidence and instead rely on what /you/ ‘believe’ on the grounds of the /facts/ you choose to ignore.

For example:

1. You’ve come up with /opinions/ yes - yet not with /one/ solid argument supporting your assertion that a hard-line, ‘zero-tolerance’ approach would be successful in the UK (or /is/ successful elsewhere). Please feel free to do so. Use the US model as an example if you like. What a ‘success story’ /that/ is....

2. You have /consistently/ ignored the issues of what /actually/ makes most drug use so dangerous. When /you/ talk about heroin addiction and the terrible consequences, you are talking about /street heroin/ (‘brown’) – which is a dangerously adulterated product of the black market. There is /no/ evidence to suggest that clean, pharmaceutical heroin (diamorphine) has /any/ such health impacts. In fact, since it’s ‘transformed’ into morphine as soon as it enters the body, it is used as a begin drug in medicine – even on infants. It’s addictive at some point of use yes and not a good idea to get hooked on (or to start on at all). But at the time when /pure/ opiates where given out quite freely, and when this was ‘socially acceptable’ (because it was the upper/middle classes who used it), there were /none/ of the health and social problems we face with addiction under prohibition today – nor the adulterated versions the black market produces.

Instead you are using a /direct/ result of the black market (and prohibition) to err ‘support’ /your/ argument that drugs are deadly and dangerous and should not be decriminalized/legalised. Would you like me to run you through the definition of ‘fallacy’ again…?

You can continue to ignore the issue of adulterants as much as you like, but the /fact/ remains that it /is/ a /major/ problem of the black market. /All/ drugs on the black market (including cannabis) are adulterated to extend their selling potential – some with relatively harmless stuff but some adulterants are highly dangerous and toxic. Cocaine is often processed with vast amounts of bleach (…so much for nose-bleeds when snorting coke) and cannabis (amongst other dangerous stuff) has been found to be adulterated with Largactil – an anti-psychotic drug. Sudden withdrawal can actually trigger psychotic episodes – even if someone had no mental health issues beforehand.

‘Official sources’ (e.g. the police) give out ‘confidential memos’ to drug support agencies when they become aware of ‘rogue’ drugs in an area or the sudden emergence of ‘brown’ of a higher purity. But this is all ‘unofficial’ stuff – to be passed on to drug users by ‘word of mouth’’. It’s never widely ‘publicised’. It’s too political, because that would undermine the official line that it’s the drugs /themselves/ that are so dangerous. And that again would undermine the current drugs policy.

With very few exceptions (like e.g. ‘grid weed’) the public is being fed Home Office spin of /this/ variety (from the ‘Reducing drug related death’ report, 2000): “Street drugs tend to be diluted (cut) with inert substances intended to modify the taste, appearance or effect of the drug. Death can ensue from the inclusion of a toxic substance by accident, or from an error in manufacture. Such fatalities are not however common and the role of contaminants in drug-related death has sometimes been exaggerated. Much more usually it is the drug itself which kills.”

‘Error of manufacture’ – I just /love/ that! Well yeah an ‘accidental’ ‘error of manufacture' would /indeed/ account for ‘fillers’ such as glass splitters, brick dust, anti-psychotic drugs, bleach, drain cleaner, engine oil etc etc etc. Of course it’s got nothing to do with the fact that the unregulated ‘production’ of illicit drugs is left to the hands of CRIMINALS who will prologue the drug's selling potential /by all means/.

[piccione]

Sands

/// Can anybody give me ONE positive fact about child drug use?///

The first and greatest mistake one can make in trying to prevent drug use (and getting addicts to quit) is to /not/ have an understanding of the (perceived and actual) positives and advantages – /for the user/.

For a light and entertaining intro, I really /do/ recommend the Lifeline mags, especially those written by Peter McDermott. Great read. Fantastic graphs...

www.lifeline.org.uk/

[piccione]

Daz

///..erm still waiting for the advantages of nocotine.///

So am I....

Apparently there /is/ some evidence suggesting that Alzheimers and other forms of dementia are less common amongst smokers. Quite markedly (apparently) its supposed to reduce the chances of developing Parkinsons. And…smoking is supposed to have shown to improve performance in tests of memory function.

Apparently this is all due to influence of nicotine on brain function.
But until I have followed up the research I will continue to assume that it’s due to the fact that many smokers tend to not make it to the age where they are most likely to develop dementia…

Ah well – what the hell. Got to die of /something/. Who wants to die of ‘old age’? Sounds like a rather nasty disease…

////Actually one point Piccione missed was the fact that smoking a few joints is even worse than cigarettes as a causal factor of Cancer.////

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

[piccione]

Daz

////I'm not convinced by Picciones middle class weekend user of heroin view. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd suggest they are the minority..what their middle class white collar Wives and Children think its perfect reality fodder subject matter for a documentary.///

Occasional/recreational users /are/ the majority, and yes many of them are middle class. And I tell you what – if we only /had/ such recreational users, and no addicts (the minority) we wouldn’t /have/ a ‘War on Drugs’, because we wouldn’t see drugs as a problem. There was none before regulation, when even /excessive/ use was a ‘socially accepted’ upper/middle class occupation. Many famous historical characters who we still celebrate today for their achievements were hooked on opiates. And died of old age. It’s not the /drug/ we have a problem with, it’s the addicted user, the ‘junkie’ – see punky’s very stereotypical and popular description. Unfortunately it’s often too true. Being a full-blown heroin addict is a 24-hour job. You ain’t got no time or energy for much else, and you soon ‘loose touch with base’. But these ‘zombie’-symptoms are a result of the black market. During alcohol prohibition in the US, people injected alcohol – and alcohol was equally adulterated. Crime rates sky-rocketed – especially organized crime. The overall costs far outweighed any benefits. Sounds familiar…?
We now look back at that phase with utter disbelieve....

In their value and ethics base /recreational/ users are very much like ‘mainstream’ society (i.e. non-users) – meaning they ‘fit in’. They lead ‘well-functioning’ lives, even /despise/ addicts themselves. They may have personal problems due to their drug use, but these are kept ‘private’ and don’t affect /us/ (society).

It all started off with one big fat lie by moral, religious bigots in America. Nietzsche’s ‘Genealogy of Morals’ and all that. Envy of moral independence and freedom…

“The herd instinct is obliterated by heroin, and the herd instincts are the ones which control the moral sense…” (Alexander Lambert)

Yeah right. And so heroin was declared an evil, poisonous drug causing insanity (i.e. ‘amorality’). Keep everyone nicely in line. And organised crime gangs couldn’t believe their luck....

And over 80 years after this it’s still a self-perpetuating phenonemon. The main ‘problem user group’ has shifted. It’s the ‘underclass’ now – and it’s the influential middle class electorate who do the condemning. And 'we' continue to please them, /whatever/ their wishes are. /Anything/ to get their votes. What are a few casualties in the light of political ambition.

And ain’t it all just too convenient for that 'detached' middle class electorate....

[piccione]

///But should we keep feeding them?///

Don’t worry Sands. I wouldn’t /dream/ of depriving you off your last maple syrup.

Enjoy while you can. You know that maple trees are threatened by climate change don’t you?

Uhhhhhhhh – I can see Sands now, sporting a hoodie look, roaming the gutters of the black market in desperate search for a dose of maple syrup....

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

///Now if you put all of these in prison for 40 years is ANYBODY really saying that it would not vastly reduce the drug problem?

Yes I am. And err…not just /me/ - the ‘megalomaniac’.

Sands I remind you again: Don’t just put that signature of yours under your posts for nothing – try and /utilize/ it from time to time. You might find that helpful: ‘No problem should be looked at in isolation’.

You are looking at the drug supply issue as if it was some petty pub chain that had branched out to a couple of cities in the UK.

The international illicit drug trade (especially that of opiates and coke - /tons/ of the stuff…) is a well-established and flourishing multi-billion ‘industry’, closely interlinked with the illegal arms trade, terrorism and other organized crime. It has /successfully/ built up a global co-operation involving legal and illegal financial bodies and even governmental institutions, using high-tech equipment and a very refined intelligence network.

And you are /seriously/ suggesting they’ll be sh*tting their pants and pack it all in because some copper in the UK nicked a couple of dealers for 40 odd years?

Jezus. Sands. And I mean – JEEEZZZUS!

Well I do think I am worth listening to Piccione but I would never suggest myself as the new Messiah. I think that is more in your imagination.

What do you mean by a 'couple', Piccione?

Yes drugs have been allowed (by the soft, liberal, namby-pamby legal system we have) to burgeon in far more than a 'couple' of cities but when did I ever suggest we only lock up a 'couple' of drug dealers, when there are literally thousands plying their trade in open contempt of our absurdly unenforced legal system?

So instead of a 'couple' think THOUSANDS. THINK BIG.

Then think what effect that would have on people scared of being locked up for 40 years, if that is possible. Compare THAT risk against the risk of being given 'community sentencing' or tagging, both of which would not frighten a butterfly. And that is when the police actually get out of their warm, cosy offices and go into the streets to do the job we are paying them to do.

Then try to imagine what effect 40 years in prison would have on would-be dealers. Would they be so keen to do it?

Of course not.

And imagine what would happen if these 40 year sentences were reduced to 12 months probation if they 'shopped' their bosses.

Try to imagine that Piccione. Just try.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands


What will happen when your petty dealers go down for 40 years is that the prices will go up. That will not reduce demand but increase desperate means of financing drug habits – i.e. more crime. It will also have the effect that dealing will be driven further underground – hence become even less detectable. Desperate times ask for desperate measures – and /very/ creative measures at that. That’s how the whole drug trade managed to grow to such an err impressive size in the first place.

What also happens is that before ‘heroin’ reaches the ‘end-user, at /all/ levels of the black market it’s cut and adulterated with utter /sh*t/ in order to extend the profit margin. And by the time your average junkie gets hold of the stuff they’ll be shooting cement dust up their arms, f*cking their veins up, or worse – toxic drain cleaner....

No you still can't see the wood for the trees. The drugs market was allowed to grow because the laws were not enforced and the penalties were never high enough to deter it. Adding to the problem was the opening up of a drugs highway with mass immigration from West Indies and Pakistan. Most clear-thinking people can see just how obvious this is.

Of course demand will be reduced if the cost of purchasing drugs are far more expensive. You just can not rewrite the whole law of economics to suit your woolly arguments.

As prices rise (as with cigarettes) the demand for them have reduced. Of course you will come out with the usual nonsense that it is all down to social acceptability again but that has been shown to be complete nonsense.

Then you come out with the same tired all nonsensical argument that it will lead to far more crime if drugs are more expensive to buy.

Well Piccione has this happened with cigarettes?

Has it eckerslike.

Yet tobacco is also addictive.

[sandywinder]

piccione said:

Sands

////The reason for the term megalomania is that you reject out of hand any supporting evidence I provide but expect me to swallow all the twaddle that you spout.////

Right. I just follow /your/ lead shall I?

You can have as many /opinions/ and ‘believes’ as you like – and if they are well thought through and logical, I might even be persuaded. But only if they don’t ignore or contradict actual, proven facts.

Oh dear Piccione is turning into Marvin now.

So you are really saying that your 'facts' are the only 'facts' to be considered.

Because my facts are not acceptable because of their dubious source. Of course it would never enter your head that you own 'facts' are also coming from biased sources, would it?