norwaysaint

Never mind, Hypo, I'm sure if you get banned there will be lots of people posting about how much they miss your humourous, satirical posts.

I really don't care, that's a separate issue. I'm asking whether alcohol and tobacco should have a different legal status to other drugs. Whether anybody is able to supply the demand is another thing entirely. We're discussing the moral issue and the legal issue, not the logistics.

I really don't see your point. Are you saying there would be any difficulty finding somebody who would be happy to legitimately supply cannabis, cocaine etc? When alcohol was illegal in the US, it was made illegally, when it was legalised, people made it legally. Supply isn't really the issue here. What we're discussing is, if alcohol and tobacco are equally as harmful as illegal drugs, that makes little sense. So would it make more sense to legalise the illegal drugs, make alcohol and tobacco illegal for the same reasons heroin and cocaine are now illegal, or should we continue to have a random system where the harmful drugs that got in the door first and became socialy acceptable should be the only legal ones despite being equally dangerous.

Just want to point out my original post starting this thread and this one don't contain any opinion either way, as some have somehow decided my opinion for me. I only get three posts so I'll just answer all the ones that seemed contradictory or had an unclear point here. How is this any different from alcohol or tobacco use? People stroll into a newsagents or a bar for their first nicotine fix all of the time. Yes, but if alcohol was marketed for the first time now, as I said, it would be banned. It's not my opinion that it should be, it's simply that as a toxic and addictive substance with strong effects on how people behave, it would be. Can you imagine the Daily Mail headlines involving this new drug that causes people to lose all inhibitions, posibly with date rape drug implications, that causes headaches, nausea and vomiting and often inspires antisocial behaviour? If you describe the actual effects of excessive alcohol use it makes it sound far worse than most illegal drugs. It'd be banned for sure. Where do you get that from? None of the reports I've read say that they're only judging it on a cumulative effect. It seems more like a case by case study. I don't understand why you're holding it separate from other drug use in this argument. Isn't most people's complaint about heroin crime related? Many heroin users also never commit any other crime. The conclusion this leads to is that you are suggesting all drugs should be banned including alcohol and tobacco. I can't see the distinction here that makes alcohol more acceptable than heroin here. When the law prevents the buying of alcohol, people turn to crime to get hold of it, just like with other drugs.

They're all good points, but they're all also directly related to whether or not the drugs are legal, not the eefects of the drugs themselves. Outlaw tobacco and alcohol and you would see similar issues arise around them. Hence the questions at the end of the OP.

Not sure, you'd have to look deper yourself. There's more detail in the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

It's not really worth commenting on unless you bother to read the article, but it's pretty interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210 One thing that's certain is that if alcohol and tobacco were discovered now instead of years ago, they would also be illegal drugs. So should other drugs be made legal if these two are allowed? Or should they be illegal too? Or should we continue with a system where we've chosen two random harmful drugs to be legal? Also have people who either drink or smoke any real right to look down on other drug users?

The easy way to see this is ridiculous is just to take away the word "should". "They should have won." or "They should of won." "They have won." works "They of won." doesn't.

Just wonder how many of those who insist there is only one correct pronunciation of words, still stick to these proper ways, or whether they've gone along with the majority in taking on an "incorrect" pronunciation.

Apparently Hypochondriac was also the only person to report Deppo at that time. So the many posters who have since expressed their disappointment at losing one of the few entertaining and interesting posters, know exactly which joyless and dull poster to blame for the deterioration of this forum. Just out of interest how many would prefer to be without Hypochondriac than Deppo?

Some of the comments on here are very silly and show that few people actually read the article in the OP, maybe the thread title was a mistake as it infers a right or wrong answer. Yes I say aitch, but I know it's wrong to take part of the language and hold it up as inarguably correct. Language has been evolving for years, which is why we don't speak as they do in Shakespeare plays. The way the majority of people speak WILL become the correct version and rightly so. This is why English speakers no longer use the polite version of "you" (thou) even though many other languages still do. What's correct now is different to what was correct 50 years ago, so it's pretty silly to get too superior to people speaking differently, when as the article infers, what they say might simply be what will be correct in the future. Rules change. Most of us would think nothing of splitting an infinitive and that was once frowned upon strongly, in the future that rule will disappear.

I always thought of haitch as being a bit of a brummie thing to say, apparently it's Irish. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11642588 It's a bit of a shame pronunciation changes as I prefer the more traditional versions, but I suppose it's always been the way and even what I think of as traditional doesn't go back that far. Saying "haitch" really does sound uneducated though.

The death penalty generally costs far more than life imprisonment. Each case costs about 2 million dollars in the states.

I think the mods really need to justify these bans or swallow their pride and lift them, it's starting to look a bit petty and personal now, especially moving what is a pretty sensible and serious comment from the lounge into the Muppet Show just out of spite. Kadeem and Atticus are pretty harmless. Let them back, then if they earn a ban, ban them.

Am I the only one who thinks attitudes like this are what have made SWF a duller place to come to and Deppo actually made it a more entertaining place. It was the same with posters like Wiltshire and Kadeem, both banned too. They could cut to the point far quicker with a satirical comment than a hundred of these endless repetitive and earnest posts. Sadly people who struggle with satire think it's just someone being stupid, off topic or flippant.

Yes he has. For some reason Baj and SG have decided that no one can make a funny or flippant comment on a football based thread. Can you imagine if real life reflected this? If at the pub you were chatting about football and one of your mates said something funny, then they had to leave the pub for ruining the conversation? Or a better comparison, some over-earnest member of the group, say as a random example, Hypochondriac, went and complained to the barman that somebody had said something funny and asked for them to be kicked out. Why can't people laugh and joke on a football based thread? What kind of dull real life conversations do these people who report flippant posts have?

A mosh pit has nothing to do with hitting people, during my teens and early twenties I was in loads and never once saw anyone being hit or hitting anyone. It's just the area directly in front of centre stage, meaning the people there are the ones who are most enthusiastic and desperate to get close to the band. Because it ends up very tight for space it becomes impossible to dance properly so what you end up with is about a hundred very sweaty and over-exuberant people basically moving/jumping together in a mass and still trying to push past each other to get closer and make space for themselves. It can get very "shovey" but anyone who starts hitting people there is as much of a **** as if they did it anywhere.

Well, the thing is to ask yourself if you still wear the same style of clothes you did 2, 5 or 10 years ago? Do you still want the same haircut you did 10 years ago? tattoos are a fashion statement just like they are, but it's sort of like being stuck with a haircut that seemed cool in 1985 for the rest of your life, or wearing a fashion label/style that was popular in 1992 permanently. Get a pair of flares grafted to your body instead, or have some super cool ray-bans stapled to your face, or a mullett wig stitched onto your scalp.

Tessem's main strength was his ability to fill more than one role.

We should be confident here, Saints almost never go out of cup competitions to teams who, on paper, we should beat easily.

Another good result today and putting a decent run together. Well done Pompey!

The nineties was my twenties.

Well done on a great result for Pompey this weekend. Couldn't see us getting a result like that at the moment.

You have to wonder if Britain might have been as prosperous as Norway if they'd kept their North Sea oil nationalised instead of privatising it though. The conservatives did that. Norway's state income through oil has meant that the country has been debt free and building a huge fund from the surplus for many years now. The tories made a quick cash in back in 1979 and there were good times for a while, but there was no consideration for the future. Labour would doubtlessly have ****ed it up too in time though.

I feel there's still a lot of buzz around this tournament. A year and a half on, it's still poised on a knife edge. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/arcade.php?&act=Arcade&do=viewtourney&tid=15