I didn't detect much sympathy for her from Michael Portillo or Andrew Neil in last night's 'This Week'.Rebecca wrote:Could we perhaps have a little sympathy for Sarah Vine?
I know if I woke up every morning next to Michael Gove I would also be a nasty,vindictive bitch.
Extenuating circumstances innit.
Worth noting that houses that have a "granny flat" (whilst granny was around) have a second kitchen, often a kitchenette, so gran retains some independence whilst being and feeling close to the family.tinyclanger2 wrote:I'd always thought utility rooms were primarily a bit weird, but have just realised that the people who have them are just disguising the fact that they have TWO KITCHENS.
Which means, that quite a lot of people have two kitchens.
I can scarcely contain my envious wrath.
I thought Portillo was particularly waspish, indeed almost the angriest I've see him on the show.Eric_WLothian wrote:I didn't detect much sympathy for her from Michael Portillo or Andrew Neil in last night's 'This Week'.Rebecca wrote:Could we perhaps have a little sympathy for Sarah Vine?
I know if I woke up every morning next to Michael Gove I would also be a nasty,vindictive bitch.
Extenuating circumstances innit.
Indeed, he didn't even try to hide his very obvious dislike for the woman.AngryAsWell wrote:I thought Portillo was particularly waspish, indeed almost the angriest I've see him on the show.Eric_WLothian wrote:I didn't detect much sympathy for her from Michael Portillo or Andrew Neil in last night's 'This Week'.Rebecca wrote:Could we perhaps have a little sympathy for Sarah Vine?
I know if I woke up every morning next to Michael Gove I would also be a nasty,vindictive bitch.
Extenuating circumstances innit.
The more they regarded her with contempt and disdain,the louder she shouted.Embarrassing.AngryAsWell wrote:I thought Portillo was particularly waspish, indeed almost the angriest I've see him on the show.Eric_WLothian wrote:I didn't detect much sympathy for her from Michael Portillo or Andrew Neil in last night's 'This Week'.Rebecca wrote:Could we perhaps have a little sympathy for Sarah Vine?
I know if I woke up every morning next to Michael Gove I would also be a nasty,vindictive bitch.
Extenuating circumstances innit.
They serve their purpose - these women are caricatures used to distract, detract & provide cover for Dodging Dave.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Indeed, he didn't even try to hide his very obvious dislike for the woman.AngryAsWell wrote:I thought Portillo was particularly waspish, indeed almost the angriest I've see him on the show.Eric_WLothian wrote: I didn't detect much sympathy for her from Michael Portillo or Andrew Neil in last night's 'This Week'.
Neither would I, Johnson looked exasperated by it all, as of to say "FFS has it come to this".
Horrendous woman, why do TV companies and newspapers seem to think the only women worth employing are ones like Vine and Platell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31849833Best hospitals 'now struggling to see patients'
Pressures in the NHS are so great that even the best hospitals in England are seeing patients wait longer for key services, an analysis shows.
The Nuffield Trust report looked at performance in this Parliament against six targets, covering A&E, operations, cancer and diagnostic tests.
The review said the poorest performing hospitals had been getting worse on most measures for a while.
But it said more recently performance had also started to decline in the top 10% of hospitals, particularly in terms of A&E, hospital operations and, to a lesser extent, hospital appointments.
It said this suggested the problems were "systematic" rather than caused by local or managerial failings. (BBC News website - my emphasis)
Well, I don't suppose the drinks industry would take kindly to its legalisation, and they're a fairly powerful lobby. Also, consider that it would be difficult to stop people growing their own, again cutting it industry profits. My personal take is that it's pretty harmless unless you hammer it hard, but that's because it can like any addictive behaviour (NB: not addiction, per se) lead people into societal and family situations that might be very difficult to navigate. Miliband's answer last night was on the whole not unreasonable for a would be PM to make - why introduce another factor with potential harmful effects where it's unnecessary? Simply decriminalise it and break the link with moving on to more unpleasant substances.mikems wrote:Also, on the point of cannabis and its illegality. It's illegality can be thought of as a class issue. Cannabis is mostly smoked by working people, and, since there is no rational explanation for its illegality, one has to presume that other reasons exist. One of them is almost certainly an urge to criminalise things that give enjoyment and relaxation to working people, especially if there is no profit for tories to be had from it. That's why the Mail is so anti-pot, imo.
There is a difference between the pot of old and skunk sold today as "pot". Skunk has much higher and stronger active components, that seem to do more harm - brain frying way.mikems wrote:Not sure that the idea of frying your brains with pot is anything more than an urban myth or a means of taking the mickey out of mates.
There is no scientific evidence for it, as far as I am aware. There is some evidence that cannabis can delay the onset of dementia, and that it reduces the risk of lung, throat and mouth cancers if you smoke it with tobacco, by lining the surfaces of your lungs and preventing the carcinogenic agents access to your system. But it is definitely best not to smoke tobacco at all.
It is a shame that people don't take this issue on, because, apart from the obvious points, it 'sends a signal' that politicians prefer to ignore evidence if it might get them into trouble with the tabloids, a far worse problem, it seems to me, than 'sending the message' to youngsters that a harmless drug is...harmless.
On balance, I'm in favour of legalisation. I just don't think it's a priority for an incoming Labour Government. I would hope that they'd make a decision based on the evidence (which isn't how the matter has been dealt with to date) - but now is not a wise time for Labour to get mired in the arguments since the issue is not, um, a burning one.mikems wrote:Not sure that the idea of frying your brains with pot is anything more than an urban myth or a means of taking the mickey out of mates.
There is no scientific evidence for it, as far as I am aware. There is some evidence that cannabis can delay the onset of dementia, and that it reduces the risk of lung, throat and mouth cancers if you smoke it with tobacco, by lining the surfaces of your lungs and preventing the carcinogenic agents access to your system. But it is definitely best not to smoke tobacco at all.
It is a shame that people don't take this issue on, because, apart from the obvious points, it 'sends a signal' that politicians prefer to ignore evidence if it might get them into trouble with the tabloids, a far worse problem, it seems to me, than 'sending the message' to youngsters that a harmless drug is...harmless.
It's legal in California & other parts of the US. For some people it's beneficial for pain relief & stimulates an appetite making it helpful for those undergoing chemotherapy. Some doctors also recommend it for depression, however, it's a mild hallucinogen. That can be a problem for some but then they find out they don't like what it does & they leave it alone. There are people who respond well to cannabis & those who don't. It's not okay to drive under the influence of cannabis. Mostly, it just makes people hungry & sleepy. I don't mind that.ErnstRemarx wrote:Regarding the cannabis thing, it is fairly low priority, except if you're an enthusiastic user of the same. There've been many studies over the years that have effectively been scare stories, but when it comes down to it, the worst danger you face with smoking dope is contracting lung cancer. When you're young, a more serious issue for you is coughing your lungs out in front of your mates. Definitely uncool.
I don't subscribe to the frying brains theory, but.....PorFavor wrote:On balance, I'm in favour of legalisation. I just don't think it's a priority for an incoming Labour Government. I would hope that they'd make a decision based on the evidence (which isn't how the matter has been dealt with to date) - but now is not a wise time for Labour to get mired in the arguments since the issue is not, um, a burning one.mikems wrote:Not sure that the idea of frying your brains with pot is anything more than an urban myth or a means of taking the mickey out of mates.
There is no scientific evidence for it, as far as I am aware. There is some evidence that cannabis can delay the onset of dementia, and that it reduces the risk of lung, throat and mouth cancers if you smoke it with tobacco, by lining the surfaces of your lungs and preventing the carcinogenic agents access to your system. But it is definitely best not to smoke tobacco at all.
It is a shame that people don't take this issue on, because, apart from the obvious points, it 'sends a signal' that politicians prefer to ignore evidence if it might get them into trouble with the tabloids, a far worse problem, it seems to me, than 'sending the message' to youngsters that a harmless drug is...harmless.
(sorry, don't know how to include the name bits like everyone else can).My personal take is that it's pretty harmless unless you hammer it hard, but that's because it can like any addictive behaviour (NB: not addiction, per se) lead people into societal and family situations that might be very difficult to navigate. Miliband's answer last night was on the whole not unreasonable for a would be PM to make - why introduce another factor with potential harmful effects where it's unnecessary? Simply decriminalise it and break the link with moving on to more unpleasant substances.
I thought they were free roaming?citizenJA wrote:I love releasing the Guardvarks.
ephemerid wrote:On cannabis - from someone who worked in the drug/alcohol field!
The active ingredient is THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and more the plant is processed the stronger the hit from it. Buds are mild, resin/oil stronger.
It has 3 phases of psychoactive effect, it can be addictive (although withdrawal is not potentially fatal as it can be with alcohol and other drugs)
THC has been proven to be implicated in some cases of acute paranoia. Heavy use of stronger types of cannabis can cause this to develop as one of the side-effects of the drug anyway; in some people who may have a previously unknown/undiagnosed predisposition to mental illness, it can trigger acute psychotic episodes.
In some cases, the damage to mental health is permanent. The Royal College of Psychiatry has some excellent papers on this.
I am of the view that it should, like all other currently illegal drugs of dependence or addiction, be de-criminalised. It serves no useful purpose to charge people for recreational or medicinal use - and in the case of the latter, it would be better to have sources of the active ingredients which are dosage-standardised, tested and regulated as other drugs are, and available from doctors who can prescribe safely for patients who may not know how cannabis reacts with their existing drugs and are thus risking their health unnecessarily.
Cannabis is NOT harmless. No drug is harmless. Alcohol, nicotine - they're not harmless. Prescription drugs are not harmless.
It makes sense to de-criminalise ALL drugs; doing so would also allow for structured research into their effects, which under current legislation is very difficult. It would allow doctors to prescribe clean diamorphine to injecting addicts, it would allow people with neurological and other disease to ease their symptoms with standardised THC, it would allow people determined to get high to access what they want without risking their health they way they do now. Ketamine is what a lot of people choose to use when there isn't a lot of skunk around, or miaow-miaow - ketamine causes irreversible bladder damage (and plenty more) in people who use it regularly.
A bit of herb at a festival or on a weekend isn't going to do a lot of harm. Certainly no more than a bit of alcohol does.
But it is wrong to say cannabis is not harmful. It carries risks like everything else, and some of them are serious.
My post about the cannabis being legal in California was meant to support the idea of decriminalising it here in the UK.mikems wrote:You need to draw a distinction between the genetically modified skunk and unmodified cannabis if you are going to say it is harmful. The young lady questioning Ed Miliband made the point that, if it was decriminalised and regulated, access to skunk, which I am perfectly happy to accept is potentially harmful simply because it is modified to appear stronger, would be harder and regulation could assure the quality and purity of what was being sold.
In any case, the current situation is occurring under proscription, and it is hard to know what more can be done to prevent possible harm, since it is all already illegal. I mean, those who support continuing proscription must recognise that any harm is happening under their own policy, and it is happening now. Simply arguing that cannabis has potentially harmful effects is neither here or there, it seems to me, since people are going to continue using it whatever the law is.
http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-p ... or-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;StephenDolan wrote:http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-p ... or-labour/
Delving into the Scottish polling figures.
Which implies that three in four SNP voters don't understand the voting system.6. “Vote SNP, get the Tories”?
Only one in four SNP voters thinks their party’s rise will make a Tory government more likely. Nearly half say voting SNP will make no difference to who forms a government.
I think a lot of it is racism, rather than a class issue - Marijuana was seen as a "black" drug in 20's America.mikems wrote:Also, on the point of cannabis and its illegality. It's illegality can be thought of as a class issue. Cannabis is mostly smoked by working people, and, since there is no rational explanation for its illegality, one has to presume that other reasons exist. One of them is almost certainly an urge to criminalise things that give enjoyment and relaxation to working people, especially if there is no profit for tories to be had from it. That's why the Mail is so anti-pot, imo.
One friend is a musician. He got so bad he couldn't remember the chords of a song from one minute to the next.TechnicalEphemera wrote:I don't subscribe to the frying brains theory, but.....PorFavor wrote:On balance, I'm in favour of legalisation. I just don't think it's a priority for an incoming Labour Government. I would hope that they'd make a decision based on the evidence (which isn't how the matter has been dealt with to date) - but now is not a wise time for Labour to get mired in the arguments since the issue is not, um, a burning one.mikems wrote:Not sure that the idea of frying your brains with pot is anything more than an urban myth or a means of taking the mickey out of mates.
There is no scientific evidence for it, as far as I am aware. There is some evidence that cannabis can delay the onset of dementia, and that it reduces the risk of lung, throat and mouth cancers if you smoke it with tobacco, by lining the surfaces of your lungs and preventing the carcinogenic agents access to your system. But it is definitely best not to smoke tobacco at all.
It is a shame that people don't take this issue on, because, apart from the obvious points, it 'sends a signal' that politicians prefer to ignore evidence if it might get them into trouble with the tabloids, a far worse problem, it seems to me, than 'sending the message' to youngsters that a harmless drug is...harmless.
I have in my time dealt with two people who were consuming large amounts of the stuff. They both went from being bright switched on individuals, to rather slow people who didn't really know what day of the week it was and didn't care. The change was progressive but very obvious. I suspect if they stopped doing the stuff the damage would not be permanent.
So I wouldn't employ somebody doing the stuff (if I knew), but then again alcohol in excess causes huge problems.
Shameless (!)AngryAsWell wrote:Devo-Manch
Under the new GMSF (Greater Manchester Spatial Framework) our local council has had to withdraw their own Core Strategy (on housing). GMSF will identify future housing needs for the whole AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) area and have decided we need more houses than the provision under our own Core Strategy identified as necessary.
Will this mean overspill housing estates like we had in the 60's & 70's?
"Localism" eh? don't ya just love it. Take power away from communities, an tell um they have more.
Historically, Labour hasn't depended upon Scottish constituencies returning Labour MPs to get a majority government.tinyclanger2 wrote:http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-p ... or-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;StephenDolan wrote:http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-p ... or-labour/
Delving into the Scottish polling figures.
Which implies that three in four SNP voters don't understand the voting system.6. “Vote SNP, get the Tories”?
Only one in four SNP voters thinks their party’s rise will make a Tory government more likely. Nearly half say voting SNP will make no difference to who forms a government.
mikems wrote:You need to draw a distinction between the genetically modified skunk and unmodified cannabis if you are going to say it is harmful. The young lady questioning Ed Miliband made the point that, if it was decriminalised and regulated, access to skunk, which I am perfectly happy to accept is potentially harmful simply because it is modified to appear stronger, would be harder and regulation could assure the quality and purity of what was being sold.
In any case, the current situation is occurring under proscription, and it is hard to know what more can be done to prevent possible harm, since it is all already illegal. I mean, those who support continuing proscription must recognise that any harm is happening under their own policy, and it is happening now. Simply arguing that cannabis has potentially harmful effects is neither here or there, it seems to me, since people are going to continue using it whatever the law is.
You should become an advisor to the next government!ephemerid wrote:On cannabis - from someone who worked in the drug/alcohol field!
The active ingredient is THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and more the plant is processed the stronger the hit from it. Buds are mild, resin/oil stronger.
It has 3 phases of psychoactive effect, it can be addictive (although withdrawal is not potentially fatal as it can be with alcohol and other drugs)
THC has been proven to be implicated in some cases of acute paranoia. Heavy use of stronger types of cannabis can cause this to develop as one of the side-effects of the drug anyway; in some people who may have a previously unknown/undiagnosed predisposition to mental illness, it can trigger acute psychotic episodes.
In some cases, the damage to mental health is permanent. The Royal College of Psychiatry has some excellent papers on this.
I am of the view that it should, like all other currently illegal drugs of dependence or addiction, be de-criminalised. It serves no useful purpose to charge people for recreational or medicinal use - and in the case of the latter, it would be better to have sources of the active ingredients which are dosage-standardised, tested and regulated as other drugs are, and available from doctors who can prescribe safely for patients who may not know how cannabis reacts with their existing drugs and are thus risking their health unnecessarily.
Cannabis is NOT harmless. No drug is harmless. Alcohol, nicotine - they're not harmless. Prescription drugs are not harmless.
It makes sense to de-criminalise ALL drugs; doing so would also allow for structured research into their effects, which under current legislation is very difficult. It would allow doctors to prescribe clean diamorphine to injecting addicts, it would allow people with neurological and other disease to ease their symptoms with standardised THC, it would allow people determined to get high to access what they want without risking their health they way they do now. Ketamine is what a lot of people choose to use when there isn't a lot of skunk around, or miaow-miaow - ketamine causes irreversible bladder damage (and plenty more) in people who use it regularly.
A bit of herb at a festival or on a weekend isn't going to do a lot of harm. Certainly no more than a bit of alcohol does.
But it is wrong to say cannabis is not harmful. It carries risks like everything else, and some of them are serious.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and- ... e-parties/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;citizenJA wrote:Historically, Labour hasn't depended upon Scottish constituencies returning Labour MPs to get a majority government.tinyclanger2 wrote:http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-p ... or-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;StephenDolan wrote:http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-p ... or-labour/
Delving into the Scottish polling figures.
Which implies that three in four SNP voters don't understand the voting system.6. “Vote SNP, get the Tories”?
Only one in four SNP voters thinks their party’s rise will make a Tory government more likely. Nearly half say voting SNP will make no difference to who forms a government.
The main problem with its criminalisation - to my mind - is that it drives supply underground into the hands of people who may well have no interest in the wellbeing of their buyers, and hence, anything can be passed off as good ol' common or garden dope. Beyond that, if there's a serious dealer involved, then he/she is likely to be able to supply waaay more dangerous substances than cannabis, which brings in further issues to consider.citizenJA wrote:My post about the cannabis being legal in California was meant to support the idea of decriminalising it here in the UK.mikems wrote:You need to draw a distinction between the genetically modified skunk and unmodified cannabis if you are going to say it is harmful. The young lady questioning Ed Miliband made the point that, if it was decriminalised and regulated, access to skunk, which I am perfectly happy to accept is potentially harmful simply because it is modified to appear stronger, would be harder and regulation could assure the quality and purity of what was being sold.
In any case, the current situation is occurring under proscription, and it is hard to know what more can be done to prevent possible harm, since it is all already illegal. I mean, those who support continuing proscription must recognise that any harm is happening under their own policy, and it is happening now. Simply arguing that cannabis has potentially harmful effects is neither here or there, it seems to me, since people are going to continue using it whatever the law is.
Ephemerid is right; it's not harmless. I didn't mean to suggest it was. The effects of criminalising it are bad news. I don't like it criminalised.
And that, my friends, is how Hawkwind derived their legendary sound...ohsocynical wrote: One friend is a musician. He got so bad he couldn't remember the chords of a song from one minute to the next.
I can see exactly the same thing happening with cannabis as is happening with cigarette smuggling which is a huge problem.ErnstRemarx wrote:The main problem with its criminalisation - to my mind - is that it drives supply underground into the hands of people who may well have no interest in the wellbeing of their buyers, and hence, anything can be passed off as good ol' common or garden dope. Beyond that, if there's a serious dealer involved, then he/she is likely to be able to supply waaay more dangerous substances than cannabis, which brings in further issues to consider.citizenJA wrote:My post about the cannabis being legal in California was meant to support the idea of decriminalising it here in the UK.mikems wrote:You need to draw a distinction between the genetically modified skunk and unmodified cannabis if you are going to say it is harmful. The young lady questioning Ed Miliband made the point that, if it was decriminalised and regulated, access to skunk, which I am perfectly happy to accept is potentially harmful simply because it is modified to appear stronger, would be harder and regulation could assure the quality and purity of what was being sold.
In any case, the current situation is occurring under proscription, and it is hard to know what more can be done to prevent possible harm, since it is all already illegal. I mean, those who support continuing proscription must recognise that any harm is happening under their own policy, and it is happening now. Simply arguing that cannabis has potentially harmful effects is neither here or there, it seems to me, since people are going to continue using it whatever the law is.
Ephemerid is right; it's not harmless. I didn't mean to suggest it was. The effects of criminalising it are bad news. I don't like it criminalised.
Simply sweeping the issue under the carpet isn't an answer, but, I would say (or as Ed would say, I would say to you), it's not a pressing issue for the next couple of years. A scientific royal commission might be the answer - let it take all the evidence on various drugs and then enact based upon the findings. I'm fairly sure that most people would accept that, barring Express and Mail readers, but they can fuck off anyway.
Re: the same matter - this plopped through my council email yesterday:AngryAsWell wrote:Devo-Manch
Under the new GMSF (Greater Manchester Spatial Framework) our local council has had to withdraw their own Core Strategy (on housing). GMSF will identify future housing needs for the whole AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) area and have decided we need more houses than the provision under our own Core Strategy identified as necessary.
Will this mean overspill housing estates like we had in the 60's & 70's?
"Localism" eh? don't ya just love it. Take power away from communities, an tell um they have more.
Good afternoon All........citizenJA wrote:Life in California & life the UK are different.
The living is easier sometimes in California.
Until you have appendicitis, get hit by a car, lose your job or reproduce.
Then you up a tree.
discordantharmony wrote:Good afternoon All........citizenJA wrote:Life in California & life the UK are different.
The living is easier sometimes in California.
Until you have appendicitis, get hit by a car, lose your job or reproduce.
Then you up a tree.
CJA - There is I am sure a song to be made out of those four lines.
I will naturally attribute your good self as the inspiration behind it should it make my fame and fortune
Only two? Peasant! Or do you make up for your shortcomings in the ablutions department by what you have behind the green baize door?letsskiptotheleft wrote:Confession time. No not that, all in due course.
Something else.
I have two bathrooms. Please don't hold it against me.
No don't spoil it you! My great grandparents dug a hole down the bottom of the garden.PorFavor wrote:Only two? Peasant! Or do you make up for your shortcomings in the ablutions department by what you have behind the green baize door?letsskiptotheleft wrote:Confession time. No not that, all in due course.
Something else.
I have two bathrooms. Please don't hold it against me.
Closest they ever came to that was Long Road Out of Eden.ErnstRemarx wrote:discordantharmony wrote:Good afternoon All........citizenJA wrote:Life in California & life the UK are different.
The living is easier sometimes in California.
Until you have appendicitis, get hit by a car, lose your job or reproduce.
Then you up a tree.
CJA - There is I am sure a song to be made out of those four lines.
I will naturally attribute your good self as the inspiration behind it should it make my fame and fortune
<rings Don Henly and the Eagles: "Boys? I've got a job for you. No, better than that. How about something that'll make Hotel California sound like The Birdy Song?">
