´óÏó´«Ã½

ALL IN THE MIND

Do these guys think they can just declare war, and go killing soldiers, based on their own beliefs? Where is Tony? He should be here.

DISRESPECT

"We should remember that our future isn't dependent on the evil of those who seek to destroy our society."

Umm...err... New Labour, ummm err.. deregulation..umm banking err.. shares, pensions, houses, jobs..crashing. Violent crime rate.., spin..

Ummm... It is!

SLEEPWALKERS

Ecolizzy (Friday) - Panorama Monday night - Grr....... just does't sink in for many, does it? We're insidiously recreating a Third World economy. Depresssing viewing.

#3 Interesting video Jean. Are the Americans as unaware as we generally are of the impending problems?

Julie, Julie, Julie, what have you done? Your poor old son, smoking a lot of dope, he'll grow out of it. He's not an addict and it doesn't look like he'll become one. You say he agreed to publish - but did either of you think five, ten, twenty years ahead - this record of early indiscretion will be with him for life. It won't do him any good, it will in the long term do him much much more harm than his drugs, which will become boring to him in time.
You keep making out that Skunk is some sort of hard addictive form of cannabis, but it just isn't.


Are there other risks from skunk?

Yes - but they are small. Skunk is smoked like cannabis, contains
carcinogenic substances and is often mixed with tobacco. The British
Lung Foundation estimated that smoking three joints was equivalent to
smoking 20 cigarettes but most users give up after a few years. Some
experts also believe there is a risk of dependence among regular
smokers. However, cannabis is not seen as a drug of addiction like
heroin or tobacco.

The greatest fear, alongside its effect on mental health, is that
skunk may lead people on to use harder drugs. It is certainly true
that many people who become heroin addicts have used cannabis in the
past. But the vast majority of cannabis users never progress to
heroin. Research by the Home Office concluded that the so-called
"gateway effect" of cannabis - leading users on to harder drugs - was
probably "very small".

Re; Julie Myerson

The middle class write a book about it, give newspaper interviews, and get Jeza to interview them whilst making a shed load.

The rest have to make do with an appearance on the Jeremy Kyle Show.

Your a nice looking bird though Julie.

I hope Ms Myerson's book (I note that she is a "novelist/columnist") is more polished than her performance tonight - you CANNOT be addicted to cannabis (dependency is a different thing) and to use the generic term of "skunk" to describe "hardcore" cannabis shows a total lack of understanding of drug culture. A simple trip to Amsterdam would have show her the many differing types of cannabis available of which, skunk is just one. Perhaps this lack of understanding really explains "The Lost Child"...

Julie Myerson, is it just a money making venture, she is saying her son was an addict to scunk (cannabis) this is a natual plant. this is an addictive thing only because it is so cheap any it helps the user get away from all the crap in thier life, if her son has gone this way she should look at what she is doing and ask her self why does he want to forget. rether than condem him and make his life public help him and stop persecuting him. what sort of mother would put thier son through this. also if scunk was such a bad thing why was Sir Paul McCartney made a Knight

Answer that one Julie and ´óÏó´«Ã½

Regarding this woman flogging her book this evening...as someone familiar with addiction problems and the people surrounding addicts I think this was one of the most insincere and apalling performances I have ever seen and certainly one of the worst on Newsnight in a long time!!

Julie Myerson has capitalised on her son's misery and her argument was unconvincing. (She spoke of 'looking through her son's belongings' to find the poems!)
Her relationship with her son unfortunately will not recover from this betrayal. She did not have to agree to publication yet alone early publication, of this book, so her denial of self gain is futile.
Also surely she does not really believe that other parents have not experienced the same problems, and very often much worse with drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine widely available. She is hardly providing the education to all of us 'ignorant people' which she so pompously pretends to be doing. There has been an epidemic of skunk and it's use for at least 10 years now, this is hardly a new concept. If you want to make money in this way Julie, just admit it!

SKUNK WARS

Award Winning JP should stick to theatrical interviewing of theatrical politicos.
The Mother/son/addiction/book story was way to complex and nuanced for his Manichean take on life. He asked, with his usual wracked angst: "why are you doing this" and it reminded me of the many times I have shouted something 'equivalent' at the TV when he is performing.

WHY WAS SIR PAUL MADE A KNIGHT? (#8)

Same reason all the others are so elevated (except those who have paid and those we want to flatter - or use diplomaticaly) to keep the monarchy in a good light with all the simple folk.

I used to really admire Jeremy Paxton, tonight however I was so disappointed in his harsh treatment of Julie, regarding her son and his, as so many of you commentors would say, temporary predeliction of smoking skunk. I wonder how many Mum's who have buried their sons as a result of any kind of drug addiction would gather together at Speaker's corner to give her a much needed pat on the back? Only those parents who have lived through the nightmare of a family member in the grip of an addiction, whether it be drugs, alcohol,gambling or any other anti-social, damaging to others habit, can know how brave her family have been to disclose their story. She is so right, speaking from her own families point of view, can only highlite the appaling state of the availability of drugs in this country.

Jeremy,

shame on you, trotting out the hysterical media dogma about skunk 'It's an extremely dangerous drug'. It has the same relationship to other types of marijuana as say whisky does to beer. Pure propaganda. I wish the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would stop putting this tosh out (towing the government line). Yes there are severe risks to taking drugs - drugs including whiskey, which you confessed to preferring to absinthe in 'Victorians'. It's easy to trot out sob stories about individuals to promote your particular dogma - we could have the 19 year old who destroyed her liver by drinking and is now destroying her new transplanted one by drinking. Or you could have a passive smoker dying of lung cancer. What about the users of ecstasy we see reports about on the TV every so often. "My poor boy/girl died from this evil drug sob sob". Yes EVERY death/injury/incapacity is tragic, no less in drug taking than say bungee jumping, parachuting, skiing etc. These are all activities we choose to do that carry risk. Properly analysed, if hundreds of thousands of young people take ecstasy every weekend as we are told, the 4-6 deaths reported every year attributed to the drug actually make it a relatively safe activity. I know of no one who died from taking ecstasy or anyone who knows of anyone. I HAVE had a work colleague whose husband died in a skiing accident leaving 2 young children. I HAVE had a boss who disappeared on a scuba diving holiday.

And where is the epidemic of mental illness/incapacity across Holland, home of skunk? And by the way, skunk is a strain of marijuana that's been around for 25 years, it's yesterdays thing. We've now got joop and white widow and ... buy yourself a copy of one of the marijuana growers magazines. Again this is pure media hype or FUD as it's called. Drugs need to be approached as a high risk activity. Prohibition causes far more misery than drug consumption.

So stop this scare mongering. PLEASE.

ALTERHOLIC CULTURE (#14)

British culture, as I might have posted before . . . is suffused with alcohol. But that drug is the drug of JUST SAY YES.

The statistic one never sees, is the number who tried other drugs WITHOUT any alcohol in their brain. The watchword for alcohol is DISINHIBITION.

Of course Jeremy is a USER (of alcohol) but it 'doesn't count' - he is just a social drinker - isn't he?

The 'rest state' of the British is misery/anxiety/inadequacy etc; we seek ALTERED STATES to avoid ourselves.

Why do Brewers get honours?

So wish this was a live debate, some of the comments are so unbelievably fatuous...don't know anyone who has died or suffered from skunk..what planet are they on? Hardly worth even considering such comments, obviously they never talk to nurses, doctors or indeed director's of funeral homes. It isn't the drug you start off with, it's what you take along the way!! Just like recovering alcoholics, it's amazing how you smoker's love to boast about how safe and secure it is to smoke cannabis or skunk...just wait until you get your body round some that's been chemically interferred with...I wonder how quickly you'll be running off to the Dr's or hospital bleating poor little me! Or twenty years down the line when you're hooked on something so much stronger, will you look back and wish that you hadn't smoked it? Time will tell. Yes, it's always a matter of choice, but so much today depends on the I'm bored, so what shall I try. What grieves me, is that you can go to any pub or club to-day, including upmarket places like Henley on Thames, and be offered all sorts of so called recreation drugs, and many of the kids there are already off their faces on shots...it's just all too easy today. I'm so glad I grew up in the 50's. Also, didn't do Paul McCartney a lot of harm and thousands of other well known personalities. Perhaps Julie will donate all this money to the drug rehabilitation centres, of which we have so few...unless of course you have the money to go privately. Why don't we just hold fire and see what she does with all this huge wealth (sic) that her book will earn. I wonder how her son will spend his share?

So is 'Newsnight' going to drop Ms Myerson
from their 'Review' panel for gross invasion
of the privacy of a family member I wonder?
Perhaps Russell Brand could take her place!

Lyse Doucet in Afghanistan piece was excellent - 4 star in my view.

Elsewhere:

'There has been scant evidence in previous research that animals can plan for future events.

Crucial to the current study is the fact that Santino, a chimpanzee at the zoo in the city north of Stockholm, collected the stones in a calm state, prior to the zoo opening in the morning. '

So the bipeds on the far right can plan for the future?

So what about failure? I don't see any planning for that.

Probably a genetic failure but you either have the right genes or you like Hitler.

#15 barriesingleton

Talk to us of egocentrics barriesingleton you must know much .... your wisdom is greater than than that of a lemon!

ALTERHOLIC CULTURE or perhaps Hitler and his Holocaust denier children - such a tough choice!

What would Nazis have done with a Schmisser machine pistol eh?

#2 jaded_jean

'We should remember that our future isn't dependent on the evil of those who seek to destroy our society." '

Yes Hitler was a misunderstood force for good and why did the allies shoot their guns at his forces?

So hard!

Tscch!

In your world the "masses" applaud you, in my world the individuals weigh the arguments and choose using intelligence and experience (WWII).

My #19 is getting pulled - YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS!

#1 barriesingleton

Yes "people shouldn't go killing soldiers, based on their own beliefs? " they should listen to Adolf?

I don't think you'll get support in Northern Ireland where many people died in WWII fighting the evils of fascism.

My original comment seems to have been removed by the mods. I'll have another go.

Julie, have you thought about asking your son to go on the Jeremy Kyle show with you?

Though not. The middle class equivalent of that show is what you are doing. The only difference is - you make a shed load.

I'm surprised Maxi boy aint involved somewhere.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Excellent interview with Shaun Woodward and also with Julie Myerson too.

And here is where supporting cannabis in any form leads....



Why don't drug takers ever think, who are they supporting? It's always criminals, either Triad gangs, Colombian drug barons, or the Taleban.

I think it should all be legalised, taxed, and there should be a type of health centre, where you go to buy it, and imbibe. At the clinic the drug taker would have to sign an agreement not to seek health treatment on the NHS. How can you poisin yourself with a drug and then ask for treatment to be cured of the affects it has on you?

Legalisation would also provide legal and legitimate work for drug farmers around the world. If the drugs are then bought by governments, it would cut out the middle men and profiteers, and terrorists.

Although I expect someone somewhere would still sell on and make a massive profit!

HERE'S ONE FOR JEAN ; )



So all those old men marrying younger women and having another family have got it all wrong as regards their childrens outcome! ; )

thegangofone (#20) "Yes Hitler was a misunderstood force for good and why did the allies shoot their guns at his forces?"

Was it because he held some very ? Have a look at the sometime (add them up and think of today), and consider what was happening to the original Bolsheviks in the USSR in the 1930s. Who else invaded Poland in 1939? Who did Britain not declare war on? Why was Poland so important?

How . Man of the year 1938, Stalin in 1939 and 1942. Marshall made it twice too, and yet he later strongly disapproved of Truman's recognition of the state of Israel.

To [dramatically] quote another Trot/anarchist "It's a funny old world".

ON LYING BACK AND THINKING OF ENGLAND

ecolizzy (#27) There's lots one would have to look into in this study including effect size, and how well ethnicity was controlled for. Whilst there's some evidence for increased nondisjunction which has an effect on verbal IQ, with older fathers, the higher cogntive ability in progeny of females deferring fertility is unsurprising as these will tend to be brighter females in the first place.

Most men aren't known for selecting brains over 'beauty'..

Thanks for the link. Getting down to details gets rater tricky I find. It's the broad brush demographic changes which one has to focus upon, and those seem to be headed dysgenically as far as I can tell.

Are the Americans (your #4) in denial as much as we are? According to the to ETS FOCUS group research (and teh personal communications of colleagues) the answer back in Feb 2007 is a clear YES. People want to believe in what they would LIKE to be true, not what IS true. See creationism vs evolution and a gentle dig at Susan Watts. Science is ruthlessly critical. Good scientists are very radical 'Health and Safety' inspectors!

BREAKING NEWS - MONKEY COLLECTS STONES TO THROW AT HUMANS!

Little does he know that all he has to do is 'hang about' and we (Like the Silastic Armorfiends) will beat ourselves up. And that is where the drugs come in.

The Paleolithic Times ran the headline: 'Man discovers brewing' (why else would he have invented the pot?)

Man's brain hurts most of the time. Being almost as smart as a chimp (who brews not, neither does he sniff) man is RELIEVED to find substances that turn off the pain. Thereafter (the odd million years) even when HE KNOWS PRECISELY the damage that he is doing to himself, he continues - condoned, connived-at and encouraged by user-governance.

Give the chimp a Nobel Prize and ask him to run the country. But if he then takes up booze and fags - stone him. (Oooh what have I said!)

I'll get me DNA

I WON'T HEAR A WORD AGAINST CREATIONISM! (#29)

If God wants us all to believe in Him without proof, it follows he might design-in all the evidence for evolution, over 6 days.
The Big Bang universe is no more supported by evidence than is God. Both require maximum credulity (faith?)

PS There used to be a clip of Dawkins digging himself a Black Hole, arguing with a Creationist the merits of BB 'science' over Creationism. It was priceless. It disappeared just after I found it. Anyone got a link? IT MUST BE THE STAGE APPEARANCE, WITH CREATIONIST GUY BELOW STAGE, LEFT-OF-SCREEN (On Dawkins Right).

Let's all be scrupulously rigorous now!

barrie (#31) Read chapters 2, and especially 6, of 'Word and Object'.

toughhonesty #16 - you obviously can't read as you seem to have manufactured statements to argue against. Where does it say "or suffered from skunk"? Who says skunk is the starting point? Who boasted about "how safe and secure it is to smoke cannabis or skunk"? Then you talk about "some that's been chemically interferred with" which is a problem caused by prohibition - lack of enforceable quality control. And as for 20 years down the line, the data shows that the majority of people stopped using drugs 15 (or more) years before. This is the typical garbage that is spouted over and over with no evidence or data to back it up. If you read what I wrote, I said that taking drugs was a high risk activity. Many in my family are doctors and nurses (I've been a nurse myself) and I live on this planet where most of the drug related misery is caused by prohibition.

ecolizzy #26 - Your example is also the same old dogma - drug takers DO think about what they are doing and wonder why legislators around the world (mainly in the US) have handed criminals an industry on a plate which generates hundreds of billions of pounds. Look at alcohol prohibition in the 20s/30s; that allowed criminal gangs to thrive (as in Al Capone). They mostly disappeared after that prohibition ended. I would also recommend that you read this weeks edition of the economist. Prohibition has more or less turned Mexico, Columbia and to a lesser extent Afghanistan into war zones. Not drug takers, PROHIBITION.
And maybe your NHS should refuse to treat people who engage in dangerous sports or eat themselves to death? What about yacht racers who call on national navies to rescue them when they get into trouble? As I wrote previously, human activity carries risk. Just because you don't engage in a particular thing shouldn't make others subject to criminal prosecution. 10s/100s of millions of people are being labelled criminals because they choose to smoke something or take something. What do you do that I don't like? As someone wrote recently, liberty is allowing others to do something you don't agree with. (It always makes me laugh when I hear Americans say they promote freedom. Freedom in a country that locks up 1-2% of it's population? Yeah right).

A for anarchists/deregulators('anti-nazis').

the neocon middle east 'solution' to NI would be to bomb dublin? shows how bonkers their ideas are.

drugs turn people into unfeeling machines. you cannot reason with them.
All Mothers are about humiliating and dishonouring children. From showing baby photos to telling friends embarrassing stories. Nothing new. and not really a NN story?

Did I hear right? Jeremy Paxman suggesting that Julie had ruined her son's life by making public what he'd done at 17 - 25? Or another commentator suggesting that 'now he can't run for parliament' - not because of what he may or may not have done, but because now people know about it?

Is no-one else worried about what that says about our society? That we expect people to be perfect, that we can't make allowances for their mistakes (which they may learn from?), that it's better to hide things we may have done, perhaps lie about them, than be honest about them?

Many of us will have embarassing things we did when we were younger, things we were not proud of - and as a result, we do things differently now. Perhaps we should stop judging people so harshly, and take a look at ourselves before we throw stones.

"It always makes me laugh when I hear Americans say they promote freedom. Freedom in a country that locks up 1-2% of it's population?"

Disproportionately, and not enough . It too, just as it's increasing here. It's more expensive than education too (but that doesn't work for ever more people either).

People self-medicate. They can't help themselves and they can't be helped either.

Did Newsnight interview a witch last night?

Thank you to Jeremy Paxman for his attempt in making Ms. Myserson answer for what she has done.

Julie Myserson made it clear to Jeremy that she loves her son, but actions speak louder than words, and it is clear that he needs help, maybe professional help. He, now more than ever, would need to feel the love of a parent, and using this experience to write a book, in my view, is unacceptable.

Supposing all parents exposed their children's faults to the world and made money out of it. There is too much hatred in the world as it is.

NAUGHTY JJ (#32)

JJ, you know VERY WELL that I cannot understand either the language of Quine, or his thinking. Thus, in directing me to his output, you demonstrate perversity.

To simplify, I assert: 'God' and 'Big Bang' are concepts of equal validity pertaining to the genesis of the Universe. ('Universe' being indefinable.)
If I understood Quine, would I be unable to hold the position as stated in the first sentence of this paragraph?

#33 Imwriteagain

Did you read all my post? I'm against prohibition too, as I state.

I think it should all be legalised, taxed, and there should be a type of health centre, where you go to buy it, and imbibe.

And yes I think people who take part in dangerous activities apart from normal day to day living, should insure themselves against massive injury. Why should everyone else pay for someone elses pleasure an dangerous activities, when they can't afford to do it themselves. We have got to prioritize what the NHS is for, it can't do everything, we are not prepared to pay for that.

At the clinic the drug taker would have to sign an agreement not to seek health treatment on the NHS.

I'm also for the poor farmers around the world getting the money directly, from government, again which looks as though it agrees with you.

Legalisation would also provide legal and legitimate work for drug farmers around the world. If the drugs are then bought by governments, it would cut out the middle men and profiteers, and terrorists.

I think liberty has to be earnt, not just handed out on a plate. It goes along with responsibility, and the state not having to molly coddle everyone as soon as life goes wrong. Just imagine Britain 70 years ago, nothing at all to pick you up when you fall down. It could happen again all to easily.

CRIMINAL IS AS CRIMINAL DOES (#33)

Re alcohol (the drug of Just Say Yes) it is STILL in the hands of criminals. Brewers with knighthoods, shops with a profit motive, and politicians with tax-take (and 19 bars).

The human body, and mind, are destroyed by alcohol. Intake is a crime against the self.

It's a culture of crime.

ecolizzie #40 - Apologies, my post #33 should have been more clear. I was commenting on your statement about criminal gangs and then your belief that the NHS should not be used to fix problems brought about by lifestyle choice. IMO The existence of the former can be entirely laid at the door of the prohibitionists while the latter is a can of worms - who decides what is down to lifestyle? Sometimes obvious, sometimes not - as in what we eat. I agree with the rest of your post. Maybe I should aspire to be as eloquent as bookhimdano #35 "drugs turn people into unfeeling machines. you cannot reason with them". Game, set and match.
Anyway we've wandered off topic somewhat. I wanted to draw attention to unfounded dogma being spouted by the media, not get into the ins and outs of drug prohibition (although prohibitionist anti-drug propaganda has much to do with it). Another time & place perhaps.

barriesingleton #41 - Er, the trade in/consumption of alcohol is not actually illegal (at least not here). Armed groups of people don't smash doors down and physically abuse those that work in the trade, batter them about a bit, cart them off and smash their property to bits. Profit IS capitalism. I take it you're tee-total?

What a load of middle class naval gazing Newsnight indulges itself in.

The UN criticise the UK in complicity in rendition and the subsequent torture and we get this instead.

Get a grip.

imwriteagain (#42) "the trade in/consumption of alcohol is not actually illegal (at least not here). Armed groups of people don't smash doors down and physically abuse those that work in the trade, batter them about a bit, cart them off and smash their property to bits. Profit IS capitalism. I take it you're tee-total?"

No you're not though are you?

The point here really is that what financial services were doing in recent years wasn't illegal either. Laws which proscribed this socially destructive behaviour (usury laws) were repealed by Thatcher and after much more deregulation in the USA and here, a lot of vulnerable people were encouraged/allowed to abuse themsleves.

Islamic states, as you know, do proscribe the imbibing of alcohol for Muslims, just as they have strict laws against usury. There is still a growing culture clash here, and it's no different from at which endured throughout the Cold War. State control (and 'oppression') vs. freedom of the individual ('to be exploited').

One can't change what's good or bad just by passing and repealing laws.

The drug addict, or the alcoholic, who wants others to keep the stuff away from them, by passing laws in some cases, is what? 'Weak-willed' or insightful into their (largely) genetic high risk to substance abuse and their lack of 'self-control'?

Julie Myerson giving birth said, "Oh my, a son!", but motherly mirth was shortlived;
A score of years later, that progeny so hate her, all familiar bonds so abridged,
That a prodigal sobriquet, no royalties could defray,
Now her references all start : "My . . . er . . son".

#42 Imwriteagain

"Maybe I should aspire to be as eloquent as bookhimdano #35 "drugs turn people into unfeeling machines. you cannot reason with them". Game, set and match."

Yup you're right there! Even the ones the doctors dole out have this affect!


"while the latter (NHS care) is a can of worms - who decides what is down to lifestyle?"

Yup you're right there as well. I do think that discussion needs to be had, what do we as a nation want treated on the NHS, as not everything can be! But everyone avoids the problem, as it's a hot potato politically.

erratum (#44) "no different from at = "no different from that"

"TWISTED BY KNAVES TO MAKE A TRAP FOR FOOLS."

Kipling would have loved this blog. (:o)

PS Hope you all heard Brown on Call You and Yours. He was shedding votes like a hot hedgehog sheds fleas. Hard to credit that he can do EVEN WORSE on radio than he does on TV. But what an indictment of our system of governance, that we had delusional Blair followed by delusional Brown. The probability that 'Shiney-Boy' Cameron and 'Leap of Faith' Clegg are both delusional, is inescapable.

Come the General Election, I shall be out in the Streets of Newbury, attempting to rouse the sleep-walking masses with a few political home-truths. I trust some of you bloggers will be doing the same? Do you think Newsnight will sent Crikey Crick to rubbish my efforts?

JadedJean #44 - Now I'm lost. This is way off topic. What's my disposition to alcohol got to do with anything? I'm not the one ranting about how "body & mind are detroyed by alcohol". I'm actually not very concerned with how people CHOOSE to kill themselves. That's their choice, misinformed or not. Educate them.

I was discussing the dogma used to support prohibition and the way the media spout it without question. (You should know my thoughts about government activity being a crime against the societies they govern JadedJean as you commented on my post of 05 Mar 2009 - subject the non-existent Mandelson apology. I believe it's corruption through and through) And we're not discussing good and bad either. To (supposedly) protect a few people by making criminals of a lot of people to me is a no-brainer. Especially as this system has made no difference at all. If it worked maybe, but it has not, does not and will never work. The laws do not protect those few people or we would not be discussing this now.

Prohibition costs monetarily the GDP of a small country, has turned at least 3 countries into war zones and in human terms destroys the lives of millions and millions of people. To save a few 'weak willed' or 'genetically at high risk' people from themselves? Again, try to discover who is at risk and educate them.

The law is being used to terrorise a lot of people whose crime is the desire to enjoy themselves using drugs. As things stand we can't even discuss drugs openly. Proper research is not performed so your poor "weak willed addict" has no hope of salvation. He's just a political football.

Imagine a world where pharmaceutical companies develop chemicals which provide the user with the pleasure they want, is not addictive and is completely harmless. How can we possibly get there when the good old US of A has a classification such as: Schedule I - the most restrictive category for drugs with "a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use"? And then they stuff that down everyone's throats via the UN and discussion is not tolerated ([Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator])

As the current economist leader says: "Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so".

And as I said in the previous post, this is not the time or place for this discussion. I'm sure another opportunity will come along.

@ 48. At 4:52pm on 10 Mar 2009, barriesingleton

The only remedy is an Early Day Motion calling for a Brown Nose Day.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

imwriteagain (#49) "Now I'm lost. This is way off topic. What's my disposition to alcohol got to do with anything? I'm not the one ranting about how "body & mind are detroyed by alcohol". I'm actually not very concerned with how people CHOOSE to kill themselves. That's their choice, misinformed or not. Educate them."

The reason you're lost is because I'm challenging some of your core (false) assumptions. People take drugs to self-medicate. illicit drugs work on natural, endogenous reinforcement systems (monoamine and opioids) which mediate/control all normal behaviours/habits - these are effectively what we once referred to as 'the soul' because these 'drives' are so central to all motivated behaviour. People vary because their receptors/transporters vary as a function of gene expression. They don't 'choose' their environment, their environment (here drugs) chooses them i.e. their behaviours, so sticking cocaine, heroin, THC in them takes over their lives as you must surely know. The reason why so much effort is put into curbing the drugs industry in S America and Afghanistan etc is pre-emptive. A very large part of our crime is drugs related, i.e it's to support habit-formation. The cost is estimated to be billions of pounds a year.

We can't educate or rehabilitate these people. None of that works. All one can hope to do is prevent it in the first place, and part of that must include getting people like yourself to see whywhat what you say is so misguided. To see that, one has to understand more about what controls behaviour, and it certainly isn't a mind, educated or otherwise. Choice just describes one observed rate of behaviour over another. That's a subtle point, but a very important one. It's why working with these people is such a nightmare. They are hopeless nightmares.

Ian:

We also have a film from Lyse Doucet in Afghanistan. It's twenty years since the last foreign invaders packed up and left. But not everyone went home. Lyse takes a ride with a former red army soldier turned Kunduz taxi driver; and as memories of that conflict are being invoked again, she asks what lessons can be learned from the past.

I saw the report on ´óÏó´«Ã½ World...the lessons can are that Afghanistan, that Western powers need to understand that they will be out of country...like what happen to the Soviets...

~Dennis Junior~

Ian:

We'll be asking her how a mother justifies betraying her son's confidence for her art.

I am wondering what was Julie's answer that question....

~Dennis Junior~

i found the interview with julie very frustrating and viewed it with mixed reviews .Jeremy i found a bit blaze' about the whole subject and julie having to justify herself the whole interview lets hope that the book has been published to highlight the all to common problem of skunk usage amongst adolesent males and the effect it has on the whole family not just the user .I and my whole family have experianced the devastation through my teenage sons use ( who after a long and traumatic 5 years is now under a section in a mental health hospital and has been for 16 months . I would like any persons who wishes to trivialise the use of skunk amongst teenage boys to visit my sons ward let alone the thousands of others nationwide and then state their opinion let alone live with it for 5 years .I also believe that there needs to be a greater awareness amongst the services ie police ,social services ,youth offending teams and mental health community outreach teams (and more drugs and alcohol services for the under 16 's please )

JadedJean #52 - Actually the reason I'm lost is because I'm wondering why you're twisting my discussion from media dogma into a psychoanalysis. This has nothing to do with assumptions false or otherwise. I'm concerned with prohibitionist propaganda which is not based upon methodical investigation or scientific methodology, rather it promotes the view that current legislation is in any way rational. Your posting quite frankly does not match observation. All chemicals can be viewed as 'drugs' because many of them are necessary for maintaining health in the human body. Our desire for them does not imply dependence or addiction. Human behaviour is complex but our pursuit of pleasure takes many forms including taking drugs. Taking cocaine and THC certainly does not take over most peoples lives as there is no actual addiction. Because one likes something and repeatedly consumes it does not mean it takes over ones life. It doesn't even imply dependency. Maybe convenience. Why should I constantly seek out something new when I know that this something is to my liking and available. Which brings us to your erroneous link to crime. The reason a large part of crime is drugs related is because in most places the drugs are expensive due to being illegal and supply is unpredictable. If the drug is addictive as heroin can be, then more and more effort is expended to obtain it. I find your post extremely misleading as you dress it up in a pseudo scientific language, but it is really just more conjecture based propaganda. Where is the evidence or data for your statements?

There was an experiment performed with very young children at a kindergarden. They were presented with 2 sorts of dried fruits with no limitations. No preference was shown for either. However when told that they could only take one of the fruits during a short time window during the day, a preference for that fruit quickly emerged and eventually became an obsession with many of the children. Data like this shows up much of what you say as twaddle.

When young people discover that what they have been told about drugs is mainly false, it encourages them to experiment, sometimes with terrible consequences. That's why it's so important to reveal the propaganda for what it is and provide factual information instead of indoctrination.

imwriteagain (#56) "Actually the reason I'm lost is because I'm wondering why you're twisting my discussion from media dogma into a psychoanalysis."

No. You're confused because you don't know what you're talking about. Nor do you understand what I've explained to you.

What I posted had nothing to do with a psychoanalysis and anyone who knew what they were talking about in this area (or what I was talking about), would also have known that there was nothing pseudo-scientific about anything that I had written. You just have a lot to learn.

#48 Yes Barrie I heard Broooonnn digging an enormous hole for himself! And weren't the questioners angry!

"Come the General Election, I shall be out in the Streets of Newbury, attempting to rouse the sleep-walking masses with a few political home-truths. I trust some of you bloggers will be doing the same? Do you think Newsnight will sent Crikey Crick to rubbish my efforts?"

I wonder who will be shouting for this new party Barrie?!

jadedjean #57 - very superior jj you're pretty good at arrogance. But of course it's all about 'the soul' - you're religious - that explains everything.

It's best to supply facts, evidence, references and stuff that can be verified.

For other readers, I tried to send a link to the WHO cocaine papers of 1995 in one of my comments earlier but the moderators in their wisdom removed the link. google it. The minutes give the US response I referred to.

Barrie #31

"If God wants us all to believe in Him without proof, it follows he might design-in all the evidence for evolution, over 6 day"

"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing", said God. "Ah!" said man...

Watch out for those tricky zebra crossings Barrie!

imwriteagain (#59) "very superior jj you're pretty good at arrogance. But of course it's all about 'the soul' - you're religious - that explains everything."

You're wrong again.

imwriteagain (#56) "Taking cocaine and THC certainly does not take over most peoples lives as there is no actual addiction. Because one likes something and repeatedly consumes it does not mean it takes over ones life. It doesn't even imply dependency. Maybe convenience. Why should I constantly seek out something new when I know that this something is to my liking and available. Which brings us to your erroneous link to crime. The reason a large part of crime is drugs related is because in most places the drugs are expensive due to being illegal and supply is unpredictable. If the drug is addictive as heroin can be, then more and more effort is expended to obtain it. I find your post extremely misleading as you dress it up in a pseudo scientific language, but it is really just more conjecture based propaganda. Where is the evidence or data for your statements? Where is the evidence or data for your statements?"

You joking? You are so out of your depth and yet display such arrogance that it pains me to have to enlighten you. I'd rather see you continue humiliating yourself in the hope that sometime in the future an insight may shock some sense into you.

On .

(works primarily on the catecholamines DA/NE) - but see endogenous opioid receptors too.

You really are absolutely clueless. You don't understand the relationship between addiction, normal habit formation (behaviour plasticity/learning) and the DA/5-HT/NE 'soul'. Even as far back as the 70s, the Cambridge psychology degree (as I recall) was dubbed 'the dopamine degree'. These are the systems which mediate reinforcement which shapes/controls all operant behaviour. Block these receptors and the drugs don't work.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#46
Yup you're right there as well. I do think that discussion needs to be had, what do we as a nation want treated on the NHS, as not everything can be! But everyone avoids the problem, as it's a hot potato politically.


Sorry to quote myself, but this is what's happening, while we don't decide, who and what we're going to treat on the NHS!

Can’t you stay on subject jj ? (#62) I’m commenting on areas such as political processes, corruption, attempted indoctrination, media dogma. You’re talking about the science of chemical processes and going on to link these to human behaviour which at best can be described as hypotheses and putting them over as proven and accepted as if they alone explain how the world works. That’s what is called pseudo science. Arrogantly dismissing others comments as if your knowledge of the world is vastly superior (even complete) makes me feel rather sorry for you. Banging on about chemicals and theories of addiction (yes theories) also does nothing to illuminate the politics of prohibition, indoctrination and dogma which, again, is the subject of my posts. If you’ve got nothing to contribute (and looking back over this blog I can’t find much) it would be best if you said nothing. Unless harassing contributors is your thing.

By the way I don’t think you know any recreational drug users because the thousands I’ve come across don’t fit your characterisation (#52) - or the media’s - not by a mile. That’s not an assumption, or a theory. That’s a fact.

ecolizzy (#64) I can't see how this (effectively) NHS and education etc open-door policy to the rest of the world and even Commonwealth can continue. Not with our indigenous birth-rate being what it is whilst countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria triple in population.

It's unsustainable. The numbers clearly indicate that the infrastructure can't sustain it.

imwriteagain (#65) "By the way I don't think you know any recreational drug users because the thousands I've come across don't fit your characterisation (#52) - or the media's - not by a mile. That's not an assumption, or a theory. That's a fact.

In your clouded judgement.