Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
If you had free roaming Guardvarks you would know about it.
Visitors to your estate ripped apart like Termite Mounds, plus the beggars have a nasty habit of getting loaded on Fire Ants and crashing out in the Drawing Room.
Ernst - the last time the government had an adviser worth the space he occupies (Professor David Nutt) they ignored him to the point he walked out. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has lost some very good people, including a pal of mine Eric Carlin.
It is now stuffed with eejits who have links to expensive treatment centres etc. and who wouldn't know a needle exchange from a sewing bee.
JA - I suspect that most politicians who have a smidgeon of common sense would, if you sat them down and explained things very very slowly, come around to decriminalisation. Bear in mind the debacle when the ACMD people walked or got pushed was under Alan Johnson/Labour.
Miliband may well know what should be done, I don't know, but it would be electoral suicide to do it right now.
When anyone who doesn't know anything beyond what they see on the telly and the odd acquaintance who's a bit of a stoner, they assume that "drugs" means what they see in the movies and on cop shows - viz: the worst possible state of tertiary heroin addiction.
There are people wandering about, working, doing stuff, whatever, who are perfectly decent human beings who are eminently capable of managing an opiate addiction - given the tools to do so.
Before the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and amendments (2004) there was a system of Schedules. Drugs of dependence and addiction were allocated a schedule to determine how they were stored, prescribed, and dispensed. Things like opiates and the stronger barbiturates were stored and prescribed under very controlled conditions; lesser barbs and benzodiazepines (like Valium) were also controlled carefully, as were the codeine based analgesias like dihydrocodeine (which is very addictive).
Back then, GPs could prescribe opiates and clean works (usually re-usable glass syringes, easy to sterilise) to injecting addicts, for example; patients were able to access pharmacy-grade diamorphine and keep away from the street crap. They had to sign a register, and that's where the expression "Registered Addict" came from. There were a lot of them - in the 60s and 70s there were still a few people around who had medically induced (iatrogenic) addiction from wounds or injuries sustained in WW2/Korea; it was also commonplace for people who survived multiple trauma to be in hospital for many months more than they are now, and they got addicted frequently.
It was very common when I was training in the 70s to have a patient in the ward who was a Registered Addict - you would not know from looking at them that they were dependent on opiates. They could be a bit of a challenge to prescribe for, as they were already using the sort of drugs we would normally give for post-op pain - but other than that they were just people! GPs would not register an addict unless they felt they could maintain them or reduce their use; once they got established on a maintenance dose they were self-caring.
The Misuse of Drugs Act changed all that. GPs were not allowed to prescribe diamorphine, it was very strictly controlled, and they had to give Methadone - this doesn't have the same effect, it causes no end of other health issues, and users ended up using street drugs again.
Overdoses were so common people were dropping like flies - if you don't know what you're doing, it's easy to under-estimate how much you need for a fix and of course you have no idea what the stuff you buy has been cut with.
They still do - and a recent project which brought back direct GP prescribing was a real success in that overdoses virtually stopped, the HIV rate fell, and once stable many addicts had another go at reducing; but it was stopped due to lack of funding.
Softer drugs should be decriminalised for other reasons too. I know a chap called Dr.John Ramsay who's an expert on all things pharmacological.
He did a little "drug amnesty" outside clubs in London and asked people to put their unused pills and poppers etc. in his bin.
When he analysed them, he found some E tabs that were made predominantly out of ground horsehair. Really!
People really have no idea what they're actually buying most of the time. There have been coke supplies cut with strychnine, heroin cut with brick dust, and skunk with opium in it.
The difficulty now, politically at least, is that the public's general perception of the milder drugs is that everyone does it anyway so whats the problem - plus there are parts of the UK where no copper will nick you anyway; and they have been so inundated with the horrors of opiate addiction they think that's all there is to it and have no idea that perfectly normal people can be addicts too, it's not all skin and bones and needle tracks and shooting galleries.
Decriminalising and rescheduling of prescribing could not only save lives it would save a lot of money. I think most people with any sense know this - but we seem to have this (almost) worldwide idiocy on the subject and it will take something special to shift it.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Confession time. No not that, all in due course.
Something else.
I have two bathrooms. Please don't hold it against me.
Only two? Peasant! Or do you make up for your shortcomings in the ablutions department by what you have behind the green baize door?
No don't spoil it you! My great grandparents dug a hole down the bottom of the garden.
I thought I was doing well, progress I think its called?
It's weird. People don't turn a hair at a couple of bathrooms, but two kitchens? Disgraceful.
I think two kitchens should be in every house. One for Mr Ohso because he leaves such a mess even making a cup of tea, and one for me.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
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.
Good afternoon All........
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?">
One of the best gigs I ever went to was the Eagles, Twickenham Stadium, June 2006
Phenomenal night !
Apart from the various reviews in national papers, this lady wrote her opinion:
I'd better get on with my telephone canvassing this evening. Can't say I'm much looking forward to it (I'd much prefer door-step canvassing) but I'll bite the bullet . . . .
yahyah wrote:Lib Dem spring conference starting tonight in Liverpool.
My credentials must have got lost in the post. And that Nick Clegg bloke pledged that they would arrive in time. Still, it's probably for the best. I can't stand wide open spaces.
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 ancient (late '60s?) copy of Materia Medica lists Tincture of Cannabis as 'sovereign for glaucoma' and goes on to say that other drugs/formulas simply treat the symptoms, leaving sufferers requiring a lifetime of interventions. It also states the date from which Tincture of Cannabis would become unavailable to the medical profession in the UK, even on prescription. At the time it was legal on prescription only, but it was given more years of grace than cannabis/marijuana plant, leaf, pollen, resin, and tisanes or other preparations of same, which had already been outlawed in this country.
I think it's beyond time that all drugs were de-criminalised, with any caveats based purely on the structured research you recommend. Legal limits (and warnings on packaging) for driving and/or operating machinery should remain in place unless and until they are proven unnecessary; and trading regulations need looking at, too.
This time, I'm gonna be stronger I'm not giving in...
Conservative 302 (of which 1 is in Scotland)
Labour 256 (of which 41 in Scotland)
Liberal Democrat 56 (11 in Scotland)
Scottish National Party 6 out of a total of 59 in Scotland
Total number of seats 650
Yeah - the Nats BTL in the G kept coming up with this historical "justification" during the run up to the referendum. It made my head hurt (and still does) because history doesn't alter maths.
Agreed - you're absolutely correct. The UK electorate has returned some incredible results - I write this to remind myself - this is why voting matters.
Look at the 4-5 year elections, the 2 general elections occurring in 1974 & the difference those results made to different parties forming governments following WW2 in particular.
I've found this website today & don't know a lot about it
...the result in terms of the largest party would twice (1964 and February 1974) have been different from that for the UK as a whole, without Scottish MPs.
On two further occasions (October 1974 and May 2010), the exclusion of Scottish seats would have given/denied a party an overall majority, on the basis of votes cast and seats at the time.
The data seems to correspond with the data found on this website I know more about.
In more recent history - 1997, 2001 & 2005, Labour had a majority government without counting the Labour MPs returned to government each time.
General Election results, 1945-2010
Across the UK, Labour and the Conservatives have each had a majority of House of Commons seats at eight elections since 1945. Two General Elections have resulted in no party getting 50%+ of the seats, 1974 (Feb) and 2010.
In Scotland, Labour has had the majority of seats in all but two General Elections, 1951 and 1955; and the Conservative share of seats has been 2% or less since 1997.
In more recent history - 1997, 2001 & 2005, Labour had a majority government without counting the Labour MPs returned to government each time in Scottish constituencies, I meant to write.
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.
Good afternoon All........
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
refitman wrote:I have 1 bathroom & toilet and 1 kitchen. Champagne socialists the lot of you!
One of my best friends summed it up thus:
A home should have as many private, functional toilets as there are people occupying the dwelling.
I agree, though I would like to make clear, I'm perfectly happy with a properly functional compost toilet or anything else ecologically sound, even if I've got to brave holding onto the clothesline from the back door to the toilet in a blizzard & back to use it.
I had a lovely little flat in Cheltenham that was about 18ft x 20ft - in total.
It has 1 bedroom that you could just get a double bed in, a longer that I could just get my sofa (i's big) in, a kitchen and a bathroom.
Plenty of room for me.
The only problem was when Show came to stay. This is a man with very long legs (like Twizzle - anyone remember Twizzle?) who has the ability to entirely fill a room no matter how big it is.
Seriously. He just sort of ....... spreads......
I have never ever had 2 kitchens or 2 bathrooms. Nor even a spare loo.
Next - IDS decides that there must be a kitchen tax which applies to all homes with 2 or more kitchens unless they live with titled in-laws.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mahatma Gandhi
Feelings may be too raw yet for analysis of the Scottish Independence Referendum.
I'm going to write this though - it's my opinion regarding the heart & motivation of three men.
Labour party leadership & MPs knew the consequences electorally for the Labour party in Scotland by asking Scottish people not to choose independence.
Labour party leaders did this for the good of the country in its entirety, placing the well-being of the whole above the Labour party.
Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling & Ed Miliband.
One other man, Dave Cameron, made one speech I think may have reminded people of a blessed truth & so also may have helped people in Scotland to choose to vote no to independence.
It was the "Tories aren't going to be in government forever & I'll not be PM forever but choosing independence at this time is forever" speech.
I doubt I'll ever hear a more sincere, truthful word out of Cameron's mouth - none of us will, I suspect.
Please don't hesitate to tell me what you will regarding what I've written.
Ok. I'll come clean and risk looking a complete pillock (although it's probably too late to be worrying about that).
Please tell me - what's the significance of "I think they're for 1 a.m."?
It's the punchline to a wonderful short-story/long-joke (written, I think, by Dennis Norden) about Descartes and Madame Descartes hosting a late dinner party. It appears in a book called An Anthology of Nonsense, which I can't find at the moment. More and more guests appear, including Descartes' best friend, the food gets delayed and delayed, there are some vol-au-vents (I think) on the sideboard and Descartes' friend drifts towards them as he's getting very hungry. Descartes touches him on the arm, as he reaches for one, and passes him a hastily scribbled note which reads, "I think they're for 1 a.m."
Which has, ever since, been misread and misreported as, "I think, therefore I am." but made his reputation as a philosopher of note...
This time, I'm gonna be stronger I'm not giving in...