pap

Not to mention the amount of problems that are caused through the supply of substances through the criminal underworld. Many health problems associated with drugs actually stem from the levels of chemical contamination that build up as the product is moved through the chain. Your last point is perhaps the most important. Prohibition has not stopped people taking drugs, nor has it had much effect on their availability. So the situation right now is that we're spending a great deal of money to achieve something essentially impossible, putting public health at risk as part of that process.

And you're entitled to it. My view is that if you drink alcohol, you're a drug taker. If you smoke, you're a drug taker. These things have been proven to be much more dangerous than many of the substances that are currently banned. The most ecstasy-linked deaths we've ever had in one year is 40. The same year, 33,000 people popped their clogs due to alcohol related illness. Time to have a grown up debate about it, I feel.

Looking forward to tonight's game. Nice way to finish one of those pesky Mondays off - have saved some beer from the weekend for the occasion. Won't be going to the ground tho As for the result, it could go either way. Personally, I think we've turned a corner and will get all three points.

You could save yourself a lot of brain cycles and trouble if you used this as your response to any post. HTH.

Hehe. So you think that Branson has a "Virgin Weed" on the way?

Once again, drugs policy is under the spotlight. This time, Richard Branson has weighed into the debate with an article in the Telegraph, It's time to end the failed war on drugs. Small quote:- Personally, I agree with a lot of these sentiments. Seems crazy that we spend so much time and money to essentially say "we don't approve", particularly when the stuff we do officially approve of is, in many cases, much more harmful. Thoughts?

Meaningless until a general election.

Small question. Why don't you practice what you preach?

That's the essential problem for me, Sergei. He will become our head of state, clearly isn't the best person for the job, and there's nothing we can do to change it, right? That is what the monarchy represents writ large; do as you're told, it is what it is, it can't be changed. Oh, and you're going to pay for it. Numerous politicians have tried to push the idea of a classless society. How can that even be possible when we venerate one family above all others? By placing the Royals at the top of the tree we've hardwired class into our constitution. Appreciate your honesty though, Sergei. Another question, if you'll indulge me. How would you feel about an elected King or Queen drawn from a base of anyone born in Britain?

Some spot-on analysis there which made me chuckle, adriansfc.

When the next monarch is crowned, can you honestly say, hand on heart, that Prince Charles is the best person this country has to offer as its head of state?

I am not sure which parallel dimension that this post emerged from, but it sounds delightful. Why is pomp and ceremony really that important, or worth preserving? What exactly do we gain by having Black Rod open the doors of Parliament, the trooping of the colour or the changing of the guard? If the answer is "tourists", then I'd wonder why we were perpetuating pomp for the amusement of others. Tradition isn't a good enough reason either. It traps us as much as it helps us, leaving ostensibly unmovable obstacles in our path when seeking genuine change.

Hardly pointless for any believer in the democratic process. If we cannot choose our head of state, then our democracy is incomplete on a fundamental level.

Here is the same story as reported on the local Bath organ. Some residents are suggesting a boycott of the shop, which is not surprising

Sounded like a McKnuckle sandwich being served up in the Caledonian style. Interestingly, the assembled scrotes of the Internet have listed the woman's business details on YouTube. I imagine this is big news in Bath

Mark the day, Gingeletiss, mark the day

Don't really go for branding at all. Don't see the point in paying extra to be a walking advert for something. Last time I actually cared, I was around 11, ADIDAS were the ****, but only if they were stuffed with thick flourescent laces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J505dMg_eg Linked for ease. Blimey, she is not happy.

Commando is an all-time cheese classic. By far my favourite thing about the film happened before the events of the film, chiefly, the moment when Arnie's character decided to name his daughter something he could not pronounce himself. "I must rescue Ch-enny!" Classic.

I have difficulty voting Labour, despite coming from generations of people who did vote Labour. I honestly don't see too much difference between the major parties anymore. All seem to be putting the needs of the financial system above the needs of people, and I think we've developed a very narrow idea of the parameters of politics.

I'm not necessarily suggesting he would make a mess of it. It's your last point that I think will ring the loudest. I have no idea what sort of press coverage Elizabeth got before she ascended to the throne. She lived in the pre-Murdoch age, so I'd imagine that the coverage was a lot more respectful. You've also got to consider the fact that she was crowned while relatively young, certainly in comparison to Charles. Far less time to make the mistakes that most people will accumulate with life experience. The press are still careful about reporting on her now. Much of Charles' private life has entered the public domain, and parts of it are just as grubby as a commoner's lot. It is on the record that he is an adulterer. I'm not sure that all goes away if he gets a promotion. Ultimately it'll come down to how the public see Charles' humanity. Does it disqualify him from the job because he's too human, or is it endearing to have a head of state just like us. And if we can have a head of state just like us, why can't one of us be head of state?

Another handball leading to penalty. West Ham do get a lot of penalties

If it is anything like my recent penchant for real ale, you'll just know.

Like yourself, I have spent plenty of time studying various aspects of world history, although judging from the texture in some of your posts, probably not to the same degree in the same areas. Given the turmoil we've seen over the centuries, the level of literacy, and the records that survive, I do find it interesting that you seem able to qualify your statement " the British people have consistently seen a need for monarchy as an inherent part of how they see themselves, their nation, and their place in the world". We just don't know that. Even if we did, should we not question the practice in modern times, to assess how it stacks up our current appreciation of the world? When we look at other previous untouchables, such as state religion, we see that attitudes have changed massively in the past 100 years. Now, I'm not saying that history doesn't inform the present. We both know it does. However, I'm not sure that either of us fully understands the implications of the last 20 years, and its potential to spark major societal change. The Internet, and all it means, is still very much in its infancy. However, I think that we can safely say that the days of being able to disseminate information unchallenged in a hierarchical fashion are over, which means that many of our points of truth, such as "there has to be a monarchy", are going to come under question. I don't think that we'll see the end of the monarchy during Elizabeth's reign, but the succession is bound to raise constitutional questions, especially since it is Charles who will be representing us. It'll be interesting to see whether the British people see a need for a monarchy when that day comes.

I watched the show. Nige came across as very knowledgable, seemed to know a lot about the players they focused on. Not really sure what to take from it regarding transfers, but then he is hardly likely to generate speculation in that capacity and he did re-state the aim of winning the division. They also talked about the potential impact of West Ham going top after their clash with Forest tomorrow. NA seemed pretty relaxed about being pushed out of the top spot. Predictably, Nige thought that our recent rough spell was a good learning experience and a kick up the backside for the team. Would have to agree with this on recent evidence. Was a good watch - a lot of Saints talk. Also a bit with Jordan Rhodes, but nothing discussed transfer-wise.