Joensuu

Absolutely. I doubt very much that we could improve the situation worldwide without other countries joining in, but even alone we could still create a basic legal market. The biggest problem will be US resistance. As the current rise of the TEA party nutters shows, the US has a long, long way to go before it could consider such a radical, but ultimately rational, move. As I said in my first post on this thread, the USA is the biggest thorn in the side of sensible drug legislation.

Most people in Afghanistan would love heroin to be legalised. It would provide them with a real economy, which is the only way any country can exit from a cycle of violence. You wouldn't need to force anyone to legalised heroin production, they have only currently banned it's production because they receive large cash sums from the West to do so. If the West were to buy their heroin rather than bribe them not to grow it we'd both save money. So, by legalising drugs here, you are actually stimulating the economies of many third world countries. This improved economic stability is the best way to combat extremism. It really is a win-win scenario And, no, absolutely no purchasing via the current 'market'.

See my first post in this thread. IMO banning drugs causes far more social cost and social problems both here and abroad then legalising it would. Yes people would still need to get the money to buy it, but if there isn't a significant change in the number of users, there wouldn't be a siginficant change in the number of crimes - except the profits of the trade wouldn't line to pockets of criminals. What an individual does to themselves is their own right/responsibility. And yes, smuggling wouldn't be halted altogher, but 90%+ of the tobacco and alcohol in this country is legal, why would drugs be any different?

Except they don't confront the main issue (scientific evidence), but instead dispute the findings with little evidence other than heresay and personal experience. Oh, and they also try to smear the Professor (e.g. "Some commentators have called Professor Nutt the ‘Nutty Professor’. It is too ­facile a tag."). So basically, in addition to being an awful, biased, read, there are few good points in there...

IMO: Distribution: a NHS drug department (combine support, advice with safe supply). Advertising: none allowed, the NHS department could focus it's advertising directly on the users rather than scattergun on the general public. Private companies: Not allowed to sell Class C upwards.

I agree with Dune!!! Blimey, still in shock. Legalising all drugs is the only rational solution IMO. It increases Government revenue (via taxation), while decreasing Government spending (Police, Justice, Prisons etc). It also means supply can be guaranteed as safe (so reduces costs to the NHS). It takes the profits away from criminals (meaning drug-funded crime is reduces). It allows some third-world countries to establish viable economies (meaning, say, Afganistan could legally produce drugs, establishing a real economy in Afganistan, which would undermine efforts by extremists, making both Afganistan, and indirectly the UK, safer places to live. So to summarise: the government would have more money, crime would be reduced, terrorism reduced, the NHS saves money, third world countries are stabilised, and users get safer drugs. Are there any disadvatages? Of course. The biggest one is that there may be an increase in the number of users, however, we don't know whether the total number would increase significantly or not. Let's face it, there are not many people considering whether to start taking heroin who are seriously put off by the legality of the drug... most people just aren't interested, whether legal or not. So my guess is that any increase in usage is likely to be minimal. More importantly perhaps, our relations with America might suffer if we were to take such a radical step forward. This is probably the real reason we haven't taken such a sensible step. For info, a bill to legalise all drugs got considered (but rejected) in Switzerland a few years back.

Sometimes you make very good posts. Shame you also write others like this.

I'm not sure which of the two Jimmy Case's to refer the question to, but did you join Saints in 1981 or 1985?

Did you mean 'eaven?

I assume Dune speaks in a way Chaucer would have considered to be frightfully antiquated?

Then obviously, you don't comprehend the point I am making.

I think I've bee using both aitch and haitch in different contexts. The letter itself I'd pronounce as 'haitch', and I wouldn't even consider dropping the 'h' when it comes to pronouncing words, e.g. 'ospital, 'erbal, 'istorical all sound wrong to me without a leading 'h'. However, I wouldn't consider pronouncing NHS with a 'haitch', it only sounds right when you prounce it as 'aitch'. It's obviously not ignorant to say 'haitch', it's just a generational transition. Language is fluid, and pronounciation frequently changes. Do any of you arguing that 'aitch' is the only correct pronounciation still rhyme 'village' with 'large'?

What has happened? An attempt to undermine Cortese's position, based on no evidence. I think it's called 'fanning the flames'.

No aggression should be used, that's a line nobody in a mosh pit should cross. Punching is definately not part of moshing. It's all about shoulder barging and using your weight. So a better question might be, 'what level of strength is/should be used?'. And the answer to that is, it depends upon who you are barging into. If the person you are about to shoulder barge has already knocked you flying, and seems to be built like something out of Conan, then apply your full weight and strength (not aggression), but do expect to be knocked flying for your efforts. However if the person you are considering shoulder barging is small, or looks like they are struggling don't barge them. There's no kudos in barging weaker people.

Firstly, the Joiners is too small for a proper mosh pit. Secondly, despite seeming aggressive, there is a real sense of equality in most mosh pits, if you fall people try to help you up. Also, you put more effort into barging stronger people, whereas you don't throw your full weight into someone who you feel looks weaker (unless you lose your balance). I've often wondered if there is something tribal about it all, the young 'warriors' letting off energy, and establishing some form of social structure based on strength. Immature maybe, but when you walk out covered in sweat you do get a strange sense of achievement.

How about offering Full Members some other benefit to compensate. IMO the most exciting times on this forum are when something big is happening. Why not help your server, by restricting the access to the entire site to Full Members only when the total number of people on the site exceeds (say) 500? That way, Full Members get a guaranteed service at the most exciting times, your server gets a breather, and the forum gets an injection of life the rest of the time...

Absolutely. I agree with Essruu that all registered users should be able to start threads (not just full members). It's fairly obvious that payment has reduced both the quantity of threads and the overall quality of the forum. However, I disagree that we should allow the less desirable posters and spammers back on the board. Frankly, they weren't 'funny' as they thought they were, they were just annoying, and caused arguments on every thread. Thankfully I think the forum is better being quiet than being filled with cr*p posts. Long may this new style of admin power last (despite having recieved a yellow card myself, rightly so I might add, although IMO 'scum' isn't exactly the most offensive of terms. However, I can't complain as it looks like the admins are being consistant: most of the offensive posters have been whittled out).

I agree wholeheartedly. While powerful, and charismatic, neither Maggie nor Blair should be remembered with any respect. I think I might even dislike Blair slightly more than Maggie. The one thing that links both Maggie and Tony, is they both oversaw extreme right of centre governments, which excluded voices from the left and centre.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516919

Yup, I can't better that...

Been told to 'f*** off' by Keanu Reeves

You're right. IMO, the real reason that this forum has gone downhill, is because 'b-anter' (or whatever is was called 'ban-ter'?) closed and all the less desirables emigrated back to saintsweb.

Sorry, but Japan isn't exactly being run in the right way, you know full well that it has had a lengthy recession. Sure it is the worlds third largest economy, but has more than twice the workforce we have, and when you look at it's per capita GDP it's ranked below us. The UK is at least as deserving of a retaining a G8 position as Japan is, and neither needs a nuclear deterrent to do so. Let's face it, the 'retaining a top table' position argument doesn't really stack up as a reason to keep trident.

I guess, if it costs too much to cancel the order, we can always sell them once they are delivered, and hope to claw back some of the wasted cash that way.

Goodness, you're very much into your semantics. 'Targets', 'expectations', 'objectives', 'ambitions' - I've used all interchangably so as to not continuously be repeating the word 'target'. Where I have used a different word, please feel free to swap it with 'target' if it makes you feel better. Anyhow, I really like your summary below (it reads the way that I have read the club statement, and here was me starting to doubt my ability to read): Absolutely, that's exactly what it tells us. So can we agree, that anything which might impede, prevent or inhibit the target of promotion(s) could be inferred as the reason for the sacking? Would this not include anything affecting squad morale?