pap

Er, no. Just regulate and tax it all and get on with it. Not really that hard, is it?

There is a massive difference between someone stealing from other people and someone selling (and perhaps producing) an illegal recreational chemical. The former is simply taking from someone. The latter is building a means of production and distribution. I say this with a measure of confidence because the distribution of alcohol and tobacco happens without wholesale accusations of thievery. I'm glad we have a measure of agreement later on. I don't think it's the government's job to police what people put in their bodies, although I would certainly be happy to temper that with effective education. I think the campaigns that show the relatively short-term effects of harder stuff like crack cocaine or crystal meth are staggeringly effective in deterring people from use. That is an example of the right information, however unpleasantly it is used, keeping people from trying the more dangerous stuff out. Other countries have gone for decriminalisation, and it hasn't been a disaster. Critics might point to the recent tightening of drug legislation in the Netherlands, but the Dutch aren't stopping their own people from partaking - they're just tired of being a legal magnet for overseas visitors looking to get off their faces. I honestly think you'd be surprised at the attitude to drugs in the mainstream, Charlie. It's not even a new thing. Generations have experimented, we had a summer of love in the late 60s, a rave revolution in the 90s and pretty consistent use throughout. As I've indicated before, I spend a lot of time in Northern Ireland. A good mate of mine reckons raves, and the ecstasy that was breaking down barriers at the time, facilitated a lot of mutual contact with "the other side" at the various gatherings. No-one gave a f**k "what people were" and got on with the hugging and the dancing. Of course, you'll never see the headline "Club drug solves sectarian issues for an evening", but that's precisely what it did, at least on a very local level.

I think they can both play. Lambo and Jay Rod have played together in the past, so why not Lambert and Osvaldo? Osvaldo got a lot of service from Totti at Roma. Not suggesting Rickie = Totti, but a hell of a lot of our forward play goes through Rickie. Osvaldo looks the sort of player to capitalise on what SRL creates.

There is no such thing as the Arab community's "own problems". There can't be with the amount of meddling we've done in the region. The post 2001 landscape has changed immeasurably in terms of stability for countries in the region, but we were sticking our noses in long, long before that. The creation of the state of Israel would be one example, the 1953 Iranian coup which replaced the oil-nationalisin' Mosaddegh with the Western-corporate-friendly Shah, egging Saddam on to start the Iran-Iraq War, arming Mujaheddin through our ISI counterparts in Pakistan, bombing Libya with F1-11s, getting involved in Kuwait (interestingly - an entirely false story about Iraqi's killing babies in incubators was the emotional trigger there), the invasion of Afghanistan, the illegal invasion of Iraq and unflagging support for Israel, an actual rogue state that is effectively permitted to ignore UN resolutions while merrily sh!tting on its own doorstep. Apart from all that, yep, Arab problems. Sort it out, eh?

Were you stroking yourself as you stared into Gary's dead eyes?

As always, there's an agenda going on here. The Arab spring is not an accident, neither is the trouble in Syria. Many sensible people have pulled back, taken a look at the wider area, considered Netanyahu's trip to the UN so he could explain to everyone what a bomb was (with a helpful diagram) and demanding so-called "red lines" from the US on a possible invasion of Iran. That's really the endgame. Subjugate Iran, and you have no-one left to oppose Western influence in the region, especially if Syria is effectively destroyed first. Every report I've heard today starts with the point of truth that Assad's forces are responsible. They certainly deny it, and the only evidence is the grave accounts of the victims lying in the streets. They assert that the claims have been fabricated to deflect attention from the huge losses the opposition has suffered. I have no idea if that's true, but chemical weapons are a "red line" that have been employed before. If those independent sources are as credible as you suggest, then its entirely possible this was an attack that was orchestrated by opposition forces with the express intent of associating the outrage of chemical weapons with the Assad regime.

That's not the argument being made at all. If the war is on distribution of illegal substances, then the war has been lost. Putting dealers away achieves nothing. Even if they're unable to conduct operations from inside ( many do ), someone else will fill the gap in the market. The cost of enforcement, particularly on the softer drugs, is basically wasted money. It's an insoluble problem, so why we continue to spend money locking people up when we could be taxing their customers and keeping them safer, I don't know. Isn't there a recession on or something?

I reckon he'll start on Saturday. In fact, I've 25UKP that says he'll score the first goal at 5/1.

Doesn't sound insensitive at all. My sister had her life completely changed by a road traffic accident, so I can appreciate that there are other large dangers out there. Despite the fact that road deaths are still a huge killer in this country, we haven't banned driving. Instead, we've all seen the speed calming measures on residential estates and rat runs. We also had a huge problem with drink driving, yet we didn't ban alcohol - just hammered home the drink driving convictions and had a concerted campaign to change hearts and minds. I'd like to think our streets are safer as a result. All these measures we've taken are a consequence of us facing up to the problems of death and injury on the roads, not pretending it doesn't happen.

At least he's trying. Don't remember too many pieces of analysis from yourself.

Just after NA was sacked.

You say that, but alcohol kills and so do the smokes. You're also forgetting about the kids who are killed in criminal turf wars.

I normally tell ms pap about these new terms when I hear them. While this is not as disgusting as "hot lunch", she did say her bumcheeks clenched when I told her what spudding was. If that's her attitude, no way I'm trying it

He isn't, as some of the responses on here indicate. He did better than that. I know you can point to the capitulation at the end of our Championship season, but wouldn't have been possible without the amazing start. Wouldn't take him back right now. Not sure if there will ever be a right time. Never was, and I'm not being terribly inconsistent by saying that I think he was a poorer manager than his record suggests. I remember reading a blog or forum post which argued that Southampton FC were the equivalent of flat track bullies in League One and the Championship. That's an interesting view, although it's worth noting that plenty of clubs have tried to throw money at promotion and failed. Just take a look at Leicester the same season we came up. I'd like to see Nigel operate over a longer timeframe before deciding how good a manager he is. I really want him to do well. I'd love to be dissuaded from the notion that well-worn cliches were all he was about. Not much arguing with this.

Don't be too hard on CB Fry. He's coming out of a bad time. Eight months ago, he believed that Stoke City were the club we should be emulating. I look at them now, proudly guided by managerial behemoth Mark Hughes and wonder what could have been. I'm sure CB Fry does too. Go easy, boys and girls.

Carts? Curts?

You'll get used to it. Six weeks and you'll be fluent.

I've just been sat in the garage reading the Liverpool Echo. The Evertonians are far from happy about Moyes' combined offer. It'd seem he's lost a lot of the goodwill he's built up over the years. I can see Man Utd d!cking about through the entire window and adding no-one.

At the start of last season, Alan Nixon suggested that we were up for managerial upheaval, stating that the ambitions of Cortese and Adkins were very far apart. That, more than anything, explains our bizarre transfer window last summer. I don't think Adkins would have ever been able to secure the likes of Osvaldo within the timeframe we've managed under Pochettino. I'm not even sure he'd have managed it if he'd survived a couple of seasons in the Premier League.

I think most people who have ever partaken recognise the night out you're describing. A group of like minded friends staying up as late as chemically possible. The E/K/Spliff combo was quite the rage on the south London hard house scene in the early 2000s. I ran with crowds like that myself, and we're all still here, most of us now quite happy to be homebodies in our middle age. There's a good point in there about not letting mob mentality fuel your choices. A "drug buddy" is probs the worst thing you can have if you fancy knocking it on the head. The potential for unwarranted mutual validation is enormous. EDIT: Wouldn't say ketamine or weed were "harder" than E.

That's a problem we're willing to accommodate when it comes to alcohol, which creates far more pieces for society to pick up. How many of those other drugs have quite the transformative power for violence? Possibly cocaine, which is of course, worse if someone is also hammered on beer at the same time.

It's only a battle because it has been framed and setup as such. I know a lot of people who choose non-legal recreational chemicals. Never harmed anyone and never likely to. I've seen the effects of drug abuse myself. I know the extremes are nasty; I used to watch wraiths walking around Kensington not so long ago, queuing outside the chemist for their methadone prescription. Or maybe I should talk about the people I know who smoked too much weed in their formative years and ended up getting sectioned. That's not something that'll happen with my kids. My advice all along is to leave well alone until well into your 20s, and be educated about what they do afterward. You make an emotive point about kids dying, but I'd argue that everyone who died from ecstasy related deaths in this country did so needlessly, largely because of the immature attitude we've got enshrined in law. If we were really interested in protecting kids, we'd give them the right information. It worked for the Dutch.

It's a personal choice issue for me. As long as people don't harm others by doing so, I've no problem with what they want to put into their own bodies. Problem is, the criminalisation of illegal drugs means that its almost impossible to partake without propping up some grubby criminal enterprise doing who knows what to retain control of their markets. People moan about cannabis farms, but that's got to be one of the simplest markets going. Pay for power, grow weed and sell it. No-one gets hurt. That's the fluffy end of the scale. I appreciate that it's a lot worse at the other end; which is all the more reason to take exploitative criminals out of the loop. In the specific case of ecstasy, I'd argue that making it legal would absolutely make it safer. The Netherlands have never recorded an ecstasy death. That's because their politicians confronted the issue and decided that ensuring no-one got hurt was the priority. They educated people on the dangers of over-hydration, put legislation in place to ensure that nightclubs had proper ventilation and carry testing kits for purity. That's a clear example of how legality/decriminalisation and acknowledgement can work together for the public good. Also, I wonder what the coppers on here would prefer. A town full of p!ss-heads, or a town full of loved up clubbers

Yup, I have a measure of respect for him for that too. I dislike Brighton, therefore want Palace to do well.

There's a brilliant sight gag in The Young Ones, in the "Boring" episode. A copper with a pair of dark sunglasses on accosts a house-caller, giving him a torrent of racial abuse using words that are fairly taboo. This was in the wake of the Scarman enquiry, and despite the language, was having a go at the OB, not the ethnic minorities the copper was slurring. I've seen that episode repeated without that segment in it, probs because people do get far too upset about almost everything, but perhaps because stripped of the context, it could be construed as being racist. Comedians still address issues of race. The difference is, it's racist attitudes that are laughed at these days, not those with a different ethnic background.