chomp my root

Sorry, had to come back for a second pop. Surely the cessation of the 'war on drugs' will pay for it, never mind the cost, even if you don't know what it would be and if all the hard working 9 to 5 working drug users play by the rules.

Hmmm so you're speculating like tbe rest of us. The prosecution rests its case !

Sorry, did I not get back to you quick enough, getting bored not having anyone to 'seethe' at ?

1. I may have said unworkable twice, probably because I think its really unworkable, I've given examples, you chose not to accept them, move on. Again with the war on drugs, I've not given an argument to back it because apparently I don't understand it but still back it according to you. Not sure how I could 2. Aye, because we all listen to what the government says, 3-4 units of alcohol a day blah blah blah, if you want something you'll try and get it, as for 'all' heroin users (words in mouth stuff), it doesn't take all, even just a few to come straight out of the heroin shop and go and get another hit of dodgy stuff and die. Again, not exactly your utopian dream of fluffy drugs for all who want them scenario. As for imprisoning drug users, thats a seperate argument and one that you're trying to throw into the mix. 3. Your argument that state controlled drugs for all, administered by professionals means what ? I'm guessing what the pro's decide is the correct amount, not what Joe Public think/want, surely you can see that there might be a slight difference of opinion. Sounds like 'control' to me which could be interpreted as prohibitions wee brother. Not to mention that depending on the hours the 'shop' is open (more hours mean more cost) that people might want 'out of office hours' hits, where to turn to, hmm. 4. I take your point and I'd love to remove the criminal element but even if the police said they weren't going to go for illegal drug dealers, some of these guys are involved in other crime too so fair game. There's also the people who may commit crime to get the money for their hit either from the 'shop' or dealers. 5. Meh, opinion, you've got yours and I've got mine, and in my opinion your's is naive, for the reasons I've given 6. Again, you're saying that coming from your no 'war on drugs' if they're all legalised and so the police won't spend a bean chasing drug dealers. As I've said, I find that scenario extremely naive. 7. So, replace one flawed system with another, involving the government as a partner, aye, even if your heroin shops were 99.9% successful that still leaves the government with a couple of unwanted statistics. 8. I think its you that thinks 99% of the population support the war on drugs, you're the only one banging on about it. 99% of the population may be against the legalisation of heroin and the like but what does that matter, they're all idiotic. As for your 'anger'. grrrr you get 'em tiger.

I've numbered your points for simplicity 1. I've no idea how expensive heroin is to produce but the medical professionals and security will need to get paid, there may even have to be new constructions due to people (rightly or wrongly) not wanting a heroin shop 'in my neighbourhood'. For these shops to work, they can't exactly be a 9 to 5 operation either. As for your assumption that the police will not have to spend a bean on 'naughty' drug related crime, I'm dubious to say the least. 2. Ooft, those who don't understand the war on drugs support it ? You've made yourself look a bit daft with that sweeping generalisation. 3. I agree with you about the monarchy, I'd abolish it but those pesky idiotic masses eh ? Democracies a bitch 4. The reason everyone 'bottles' the debate is because you're obsessed with your 'war on drugs' that you cherry pick what the debate entails, I can't speak for all of us but I'm not quite as 'into' it as you are, so for most of me its a non-debate, I'm guessing in your own head you've got some killer arguments desperate to see the light of day As for your 'tone' you really should work on it, I'm not saying you should be kissing babies but slagging off the people you're trying to convert is, you know, counterproductive and as you're not daft and know this, it makes me wonder why you take this approach.

No doubt he's done research but he's presenting it like the word of God, to quote Disreali (or Twain) lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm sure anyone who decided to set themselves up as the guru on any topic could find 'facts' to back themselves up. Oh and if he's wanting to convert people to his way of thinking, common courtesy is a good starting point, if he becomes sick of repeating himself (ha) then theres no need to re-enter the debate. No offence but you're coming across as the wee guy stood behind the big guy going "yeah, what he says".

On a busy choo choo and on phone so not too practicle to break down all your various 'shotgun' points but I'll have a go later. I will say that on planet Sheldon your policy might work but are you really that naive that you think people will just what they're supposed to ? As for your abolishionist comparison, which I was half expecting, I'll counter with the age of consent issue, kids under sixteen are shagging should we abolish the age of consent ? We govern ultimately by concensus (sort off) through our elected members (not a perfect system, maybe you've got ideas to improve that too). Like I say, you just need to convince either (or both) the MP's or the idiotic masses. I'd work on your people skills first though. Just in case you're not aware, the Sheldon reference is from a popular TV (television) programme.

OK, but if there's any bumming involved, I've changed my mind about the drugs !

I'm a ridiculous kind of a cat

Just because you agree with him and no matter how hard you wish it were the case it is unworkable. Your heroin user goes along to the government clinic/shop (it sell stuff, its a shop to me, doesn't mean I think it'll be next to RS McColls on the 'High' st.) and gets his stuff, job done. Next day for whatever reason he's having a shit day he wants another hit of the good stuff but the heroin shop says sorry mate you had yours yesterday you'll have to wait XX days/hrs. What does our user do ? Say "fair enough chief I'll pop back then" or does he get it from somewhere else ? All the talk of prohibition not working is a bit of a smoke screen, what (seems to me anyway) is being said is the government can get better safer drugs. The system being proposed isn't going to be a 'get what you want, when you want, as long as you can pay' approach, whats being suggested is a 'professional' telling you how much you can get and how often. A form of prohibition. While this might work for some do you really think this will work for all ? So we have the heroin shops, we still have illegal drug trafficking and the crime associated with people committing crime to get their fix. This doesn't exactly fit the utopian vision presented to end this 'war on drugs' stuff (forgive my ignorance of all its ramifications). So we still have police trying to stop the 'bad' non state drug sellers and criminals who commit crimes to get them. We also have a situation where people can 'justify' even if only to themselves that its not their fault and as we all know wheres there blame theres a claim so its the governments fault. While in your eyes, I don't get it, I could argue the reverse and suggest your approach is very naive and possibly dangerous to many (as it is now I realise) but state sanctioned and therefore potentially a different financial burden on the state. Before Supras asks me for my 'specific' solutions (for his no doubt unbiased consideration) to the problem I don't have it, sorry, it's not something that I've given a great deal of thought to but as ever I try and keep an open mind and theres not been any real 'logic' in this thread that works in the messy world of people (for me). I have to say as a closing comment that if 99% don't get it then maybe its the 1% that are at odds. Keep trying to change peoples minds by all means but I would suggest that legalising cannabis would be the first step rather than the all or nothing angry approach.

You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest. I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm) It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm.

They get assistance from the NHS as you know, my point was that heroin shops would be quite expensive if the current booze/tabs tax levels were used to make the service more or less cost neutral. This may push people down the current root so what happens to these people ? Alcoholics/alcohol abusers who commit crimes aren't immune from the long arm of the law so I would assume that Drug users/addicts would be the same. The other strand of my argument is the acceptance angle and you agree surely that right or wrong people would be against it which firmly throws it back to the 'pro' camp to convince people to change their attitudes. The catch 22 of politicians and the voters would suggest (to me anyway) that the 'logic' of legalising all drugs would not be pushed (geddit) on us by politicians.

On the actual question I voted yes, I've never tried it and thats unlikely to change but from seeing friends take it for years I have no problem with weed and for all the reasons stated, it makes sense. On the argument that all drugs should be legalised, I find that one completely unworkable, I can follow Supras's logic for it but (if I've got what he's saying) I can pop down to my local heroin clinic for my regular fix and alls peachy, I hand over my cash and I'm sorted. What would happen if I lose my job/retire and can't afford it now ? Do I get it off the NHS (why work then ?) or do I resort to the current system of committing crimes to feed my habit (government condoned/assisted) to buy illegal (and possibly cheaper crappier) replacements. Would I then deserve to be punished by the criminal justice system for building a habit that the government have had a hand in creating ? While I'm no fan of the nanny state surely they would have some kind of duty of care, possibly making any official 'heroin shops' fairly cost prohibitive for a lot of users. There's also the 'masses' who vote for our policy makers, who rely on the 'masses' for their jobs. Suggesting to these masses that the government want to set up 'heroin shops' would be a vote loser so the masses would need to be 'educated' that its acceptable. Cannabis would, I would imagine be acceptable to a lot, if not most but much more than that I think no matter how much some may want it (and how much 'logic' they may use) they'll be pushing against public opinion which doesn't really have to rely on anything, personal prejudice can go a long way. Its back to convincing people that its the best course which is doubtful at best.

I don't know as much as some of you guys seem to but I'm pretty certain she changed her story after first lifted for it. I'm not saying that means she committed murder but at the very least she's perverted the course of justice (or something along those lines). She's probably just an arrogant self absorbed yank who thinks she could do whatever she wanted (within reason) and it was all part of 'her' European adventure. She's gone down a path now and can't really go back on it but the changing her story just screams that she knows more than she knows more than she's been letting on. ETA, wid !

What 'grinds my gears' is the coverage of football especially by Sky, because they've got 8000 cameras at the ground they feel they have to use them so every time theres anything happening on the wings they always cut to the closest camera. I have no interest in a close up view of a player throwing a ball in or beating a man and crossing a ball and missing the rest of whats happening on the pitch. I've seen it before where the editor has to change sharpish so that we 'just' manage to see the goal. These other cameras are great for the replays, showing stuff from different angles etc. but I'm more than happy watching the overview the vast majority of the time.

Just watched the 'Rambo' version of Judge Dredd for the first time on TV, I knew there was a reason I left it 20 (?) years, I used to be a big 2000AD fan and was, in P & B terms 'seething' that Stallone was cast in the role of Joe Dredd. 20 years later I ain't exactly seething but I'm glad I didn't spend a farthing or whatever it was in 90's money going to the moving pictures to watch it.

I've got 'super popoid groove' by Win on a 12" single but my record player has been relegated to the garage in the short term so can't have a wee wander down memory lane unfortunately. They were a bit poppy but a good band.

Was in the Bar West before the game. Good scran, good pint and good atmosphere, good shout for a pre/apre match aperitif. Bar staff friendly too, will be back.

Worked with a gay guy with the surname Roughly (honest) who got called 'do-me'.

I've also come across (not literally) the following, 'Tess' Tickle 'Pickle' Dunion 'Safety' Harness 'Piss' Sample

Its probably too late now because they've got your measure mate but when I was living in Edinburgh years ago I had problems with noisy neighbours. I went down the police/council route but eventually resolved it with a chap on the door and promises of a good fucking hiding. At least try the council and the police if its music etc. The more you ring the council the more 'evidence' you have. The no smoke without fire theory. I've not reread your posts on here but if theres nothing too contentious you can even point them to the thread for dates that things have happened. Have other neighbours got any issues with them ? It may be worth finding out as 'back up'. Fife council are generally pretty good on these things. If they are renting you can also get in touch with their landlord (landlord register) who is oblidged to make sure his tennants arent being a nuisance.

Just minded another one, 'nadsar' Aitken.

I work in a nickname rich environment, some of my favs are.... We had a guys whos surname was Fiddler, nickname 'Kiddy' I've known a few Wan's, mostly Kerr's but a couple of Kings too (although Nosmo is common for Kings too) Theres a 'Notso' Wiseman who's not the sharpest tool in the box I've worked with a 'Throm' (as in thrombosis) because he was a slow moving clot Theres 'Uphill' Gardener who made the fatal mistake on being asked what he was called, said anything except Uphill so Uphill it was. Seal pup is another one, not because they're cute and likeable, just because you want to club the fuckers to death. If I think of more, I'll add to the list

Have to say, I found it a bit soapy and contrived. I watched the first 2 series on the recommendation of a couple of mates and stuck with it but have'nt bothered after that. I don't know what it is that engages me with some of these series and not with others because they can all be a bit 'soapy' at times, I think its when characters become completely self indulgent and whiney that puts me off, I dunno, but I thought there was a fair bit of this whiney soul searching in SOA.