c4countdown

Other than with The Woolwich?

There's been lots of headlines recently about where councils are cutting services and the consequent uproar, so where do you think they could save money?

My first suggestion is to end free lifetime prescriptions for people with certain medical conditions. NHS services are already means-tested to a certain extent, so people with lowest incomes are already exempt from having to pay for them. In addition to that there's selectivity in the exemptions, so transplant recipients who need lifelong meds have to pay for them, but people with hypothyroidism don't, for example. This is blatantly unfair. I think people who can pay for it should, and people who can't shouldn't.

Over to you

I'm a cockeyed optimist so I have no reason not to believe a global resource based economy, like the one proposed by The Venus Project featured in the Zeitgeist Addendum movie thing, would work. Obviously the first Zeitgeist movie was conspiracy theory twaddle but I found this one intriguing. I'd love to hear from someone who understands economics to explain why it wouldn't work. Is it good intentioned but ultimately impractical?

Lesley Hines wrote:Other than with The Woolwich?

There's been lots of headlines recently about where councils are cutting services and the consequent uproar, so where do you think they could save money?

My first suggestion is to end free lifetime prescriptions for people with certain medical conditions. NHS services are already means-tested to a certain extent, so people with lowest incomes are already exempt from having to pay for them. In addition to that there's selectivity in the exemptions, so transplant recipients who need lifelong meds have to pay for them, but people with hypothyroidism don't, for example. This is blatantly unfair. I think people who can pay for it should, and people who can't shouldn't.

Over to you

Yes the NHS is annoying with things like this. I think hospital car parks are pretty disgraceful (the ones around here seem to be privately run). So you want to visit your family do you? That'll be £3 for anything longer than 10 minutes. Which on most afternoons is how long it takes to find a parking spot. Fortunately it's free if you've a disabled badge, except sometimes there's a moron working at the gate wants you to take the badge out of the plastic holder and see the other side too. Don't worry though they let anyone park in the disabled bays.

Other than that the main way to save money is don't vote that shower of shite Labour Party back into power for the foreseeable future.

Craig Beevers wrote:
Other than that the main way to save money is don't vote that shower of shite Labour Party back into power for the foreseeable future.

Even better if we could keep the Tories out too, and most other politicians.

Ian Volante wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:
Other than that the main way to save money is don't vote that shower of shite Labour Party back into power for the foreseeable future.

Even better if we could keep the Tories out too, and most other politicians.

Agreed.

Britain has the world's 3rd largest military budget (or 4th, depending on how you count). Which is pretty lol when you think how small the country is and what a low risk of invasion we have. So yeah, sack them all.

Soph K wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:
Other than that the main way to save money is don't vote that shower of shite Labour Party back into power for the foreseeable future.

Even better if we could keep the Tories out too, and most other politicians.

Agreed.

Disagreed

Even better if we could keep the Tories out too, and most other politicians.

Agreed.

Disagreed

Agreed!
Not agreed with you saying disagreed - agreed with what I said agreed to before!

I like the Conservatives, Margaret Thatcher and I support the coalition.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I like [...] Margaret Thatcher

How old are you?

Charlie Reams wrote:Britain has the world's 3rd largest military budget (or 4th, depending on how you count). Which is pretty lol when you think how small the country is and what a low risk of invasion we have. So yeah, sack them all.

Yep. E-mail is probably the cheapest way to do this as well.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I like [...] Margaret Thatcher

How old are you?

I think Rhys is 12.
btw, before you ask, i am a lady. ladies dont tell their age.


i am 10 if you must know

I certainly agree that the military budget is horribly wasteful and far, far too large, but I think we do need some sort of military force. I'd prefer to live in a world where no-one did but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. The forces do actually do quite a lot of useful work that doesn't necessarily make the papers, like capturing drug-runners (with millions of pounds worth on board ready for import and distribution), policing international environmental and economic policies, monitoring terrorist groups, foreign aid support work, and keeping ladies of the night's income up.

With the hospitals, I think PFIs are an awful idea. In Worcester the hospital buildings were sold off to lease a building that wasn't fit for purpose (and had to be altered at great expense to the NHS to make it work) while having under-budgeted for the tender as local smaller units were closed to finance the new building. Then, as Craig said, paying through the nose to park to further line the pockets of the management company. Tbf Worcester has been held up as national example of how not to run a PFI, but that doesn't improve the service we've got.

Come to that, what about AV? Sounds incredibly expensive to implement to me, and considering I wouldn't trust most people to understand the policies they're actually voting for is then allowing them to rank them a good idea? Won't it just massively increase the number of invalid votes (and if they're too thick to fill in a polling form is that a bad idea?). I thought they were supposed to be saving money, rather than spending a small fortune on referendums and stuff that can probably wait a few years, since it's waited this long.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I like [...] Margaret Thatcher

How old are you?

12 Phil, and there's a debate in school about her (unofficially). I am for.

There is a bit of contrafibularity in this.

(Here'a a bit from Facebook)

Rhys Benjamin
MARGARET THATCHER RULEZ!!!

Person B
Poverty is despiced in Britian. Rhys please get your facts right immedietly.

Rhys Benjamin
Exactly. She removed poverty from the south of england where there is a higher population. She had no choice but to move it into the north to avoid less casualties.

Main Rival
it was even there was nothing wrong with the south she just made it worse in the north

Rhys Benjamin
no it wasn't

Main Rival
yes it was my dad removed himself from the north so that he could come to the south

Rhys Benjamin
but my dad's mum got in a condition under james callaghan she's never recovered from but she thought margaret thatcher was trying.

Main Rival
she closed down all the jobs that were in the north were they are the only jobs there in the south there are much more jobs

Rhys Benjamin
exactly. it was either more poverty in the south or a bit in the north

Person B
‎-_-

Main Rival
no but it was more in the north before but she just increased there are so many jobs in the south and very little in the north

Person B
Indeed.

Main Rival
margaret was an illness that was brought over to Britain there is no debate over her being the best i think it is an outrage that rhys can say that [person b] do you object to this

Lesley Hines wrote:The forces do actually do quite a lot of useful work that doesn't necessarily make the papers, like capturing drug-runners (with millions of pounds worth on board ready for import and distribution)

Then legalize drugs and make some money whilst saving money on drug enforcement.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I like [...] Margaret Thatcher

How old are you?

12 Phil, and there's a debate in school about her (unofficially). I am for.

It's good that you take an interest in political debate at your age; slightly scary, though, to think that you're not only too young to remember her as Prime Minister, but even too young to remember the feeling of almost universal joy in the country (it felt like an impromptu public holiday) on the day after the general election in 1997, when Labour's landslide victory brought an end to 18 years of Tory government, of which the Thatcher era formed the dominant part. For many of those to whom Thatcher's reign still feels relatively recent, she will chiefly be remembered for such "achievements" as:

• making some people rich at the expense of poverty for many
• creating mass unemployment while simultaneously undermining the welfare state
• causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of British and Argentinian troops in the Falklands before tastelessly shouting "Rejoice! Rejoice!" on the steps of 10 Downing Street (causing Denis Healy famously to refer to her as "the Prime Minister who glories in slaughter" - an entirely justified remark which he was later disappointingly forced to retract)
• needlessly prolonging the violence in Northern Ireland by refusing point blank to negotiate with sectarian groups.

For me, though, I think what turned my active political dislike of the woman into extreme personal hatred - and me from a hand-wringing liberal into a placard-waving lefty - was her unremitting bigotry. I vividly remember hurling one of my shoes at the TV screen in impotent rage during the party conference in 1987 when she expressed her quivering-voiced disgust that "children who need to be taught traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay". (At the time, if you were under 21, homosexuality was an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.)

So, in summary: Thatcher was, and is, an evil fucking witch. It's a minor miracle she was never assassinated while she was PM. As it is, when she does eventually expire, I sincerely hope that (a) her death is as lingering and painful as possible and that (b) her grave is marked by some sort of publicly accessible monument that we can all go and dance up and down on.

Phil Reynolds wrote:the feeling of almost universal joy in the country (it felt like an impromptu public holiday) on the day after the general election in 1997, when Labour's landslide victory brought an end to 18 years of Tory government, of which the Thatcher era formed the dominant part.

Absolutely, this. I remember going to work on that day and it was all anyone could talk about, and everyone was so happy and optimistic and everything. Of course, that whole thing didn't turn out too great, but for a few months it really did seem as though there was a bright future.

Phil Reynolds wrote:As it is, when she does eventually expire, I sincerely hope that (a) her death is as lingering and painful as possible and that (b) her grave is marked by some sort of publicly accessible monument that we can all go and dance up and down on.

Ten years ago, I'd have agreed with you and probably even would have bought some special dancing shoes to wear. But now she's frail and senile, I find it more difficult to muster the venom. I feel sorry for her more than anything - for all I disagreed with more or less everything she stood for, it's sad to see a formidable intellect (which she undoubtedly had) wane away into nothing.

Mark James wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:The forces do actually do quite a lot of useful work that doesn't necessarily make the papers, like capturing drug-runners (with millions of pounds worth on board ready for import and distribution)

Then legalize drugs and make some money whilst saving money on drug enforcement.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/201 ... ulture_war

I think Bob Dylan said it best when he said "the times, they are a changing".

Phil Reynolds wrote: It's good that you take an interest in political debate at your age; slightly scary, though, to think that you're not only too young to remember her as Prime Minister, but even too young to remember the feeling of almost universal joy in the country (it felt like an impromptu public holiday) on the day after the general election in 1997, when Labour's landslide victory brought an end to 18 years of Tory government, of which the Thatcher era formed the dominant part. For many of those to whom Thatcher's reign still feels relatively recent, she will chiefly be remembered for such "achievements" as:

• making some people rich at the expense of poverty for many
• creating mass unemployment while simultaneously undermining the welfare state
• causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of British and Argentinian troops in the Falklands before tastelessly shouting "Rejoice! Rejoice!" on the steps of 10 Downing Street (causing Denis Healy famously to refer to her as "the Prime Minister who glories in slaughter" - an entirely justified remark which he was later disappointingly forced to retract)
• needlessly prolonging the violence in Northern Ireland by refusing point blank to negotiate with sectarian groups.

For me, though, I think what turned my active political dislike of the woman into extreme personal hatred - and me from a hand-wringing liberal into a placard-waving lefty - was her unremitting bigotry. I vividly remember hurling one of my shoes at the TV screen in impotent rage during the party conference in 1987 when she expressed her quivering-voiced disgust that "children who need to be taught traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay". (At the time, if you were under 21, homosexuality was an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.)

So, in summary: Thatcher was, and is, an evil fucking witch. It's a minor miracle she was never assassinated while she was PM. As it is, when she does eventually expire, I sincerely hope that (a) her death is as lingering and painful as possible and that (b) her grave is marked by some sort of publicly accessible monument that we can all go and dance up and down on.

I hardly ever use smileys but erm:



Regards to AV I think it's fairly pointless really as it will make little real difference (just seems a distraction to PR - which would make a big difference and should be debated properly). And it just means you get even more power to the halfwits who for their entire life will vote anyone *but* X because they have this rabid hatred of them. If any of the parties actually did show some sign of competency I would consider voting for them. The Tories are the only one in recent times who've done this - so values, right/left wing etc. don't even come into it. In the end you're not really voting for a party anyway, you're voting for a group of people who supposedly represent that party. The last Labour government weren't anything like a traditional Labour party in their policies.

Charlie Reams wrote:Britain has the world's 3rd largest military budget (or 4th, depending on how you count). Which is pretty lol when you think how small the country is and what a low risk of invasion we have. So yeah, sack them all.

*LIKE*

In particular, there is no intelligible way any of our nuclear weapons could be used

Mark James wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:The forces do actually do quite a lot of useful work that doesn't necessarily make the papers, like capturing drug-runners (with millions of pounds worth on board ready for import and distribution)

Then legalize drugs and make some money whilst saving money on drug enforcement.

I did that in debating club the other day. We couldn't reach agreement.

Lesley Hines wrote:I certainly agree that the military budget is horribly wasteful and far, far too large, but I think we do need some sort of military force.

I was being a bit flippant in saying sack them all, but honestly I think we could make pretty deep cuts without losing too much. Maybe "Austerity Britain" could actually stay out of some wars for a bit, and having a smaller military would encourage that on several fronts (ha ha).

PS Which country was it that has disbanded their military completely and spent the money on schools and healthcare? I'd like to see how that turned out for them, although our situation is probably a bit different to theirs.

The forces do actually do quite a lot of useful work that doesn't necessarily make the papers, like capturing drug-runners

To repeat the above: legalise drugs and tax them. I realise this is more like making money than saving it, but presumably the aphorism can be reversed so a penny earned is a penny saved.

With the hospitals, I think PFIs are an awful idea.

Agreed. Have you been following the Private Eye coverage of this? It's basically a balance sheet trick which will eventually catch up with us.

Come to that, what about AV? Sounds incredibly expensive to implement to me, and considering I wouldn't trust most people to understand the policies they're actually voting for is then allowing them to rank them a good idea? Won't it just massively increase the number of invalid votes (and if they're too thick to fill in a polling form is that a bad idea?). I thought they were supposed to be saving money, rather than spending a small fortune on referendums and stuff that can probably wait a few years, since it's waited this long.

Even the opponents of AV estimate that the switch would cost about £250M, which is basically small change at a national level, especially since it's a one-time cost. One could also argue that, since it measurably improves the value of the consensus which elects the government, it would also improve spending efficiency of future governments, thereby paying for itself. But even if it didn't, if we're willing to spend £8B (and counting) to bring democracy to Iraq then surely we should be prepared to spend 3% of that on democratic fairness for ourselves. Whatever the arguments for and against AV, I don't think cost is a compelling one.

Lesley Hines wrote:Come to that, what about AV? Sounds incredibly expensive to implement to me, and considering I wouldn't trust most people to understand the policies they're actually voting for is then allowing them to rank them a good idea? Won't it just massively increase the number of invalid votes (and if they're too thick to fill in a polling form is that a bad idea?). I thought they were supposed to be saving money, rather than spending a small fortune on referendums and stuff that can probably wait a few years, since it's waited this long.

Why would having someone working out vote redistribution at each general election count, as well as a general information campaign be incredibly expensive? EDIT: Charlie said this much better than me above.

We've managed well enough in Scotland since 1999 with a more complicated system, and apart from one notable exception, where there was a lack of forethought in design and implementation, the system's run pretty much without a hitch. This has enabled minor parties (pensioners (once), socialists and greens) and independents to get in and make a difference.

Also, I don't see why Joe Bloggs won't be able to fathom how to put a 1 next to BNP, a 2 next to UKIP and a 3 next to Conservative. I know people are a bit thick at times, but give them some credit!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote: Come to that, what about AV? Sounds incredibly expensive to implement to me, and considering I wouldn't trust most people to understand the policies they're actually voting for is then allowing them to rank them a good idea? Won't it just massively increase the number of invalid votes (and if they're too thick to fill in a polling form is that a bad idea?). I thought they were supposed to be saving money, rather than spending a small fortune on referendums and stuff that can probably wait a few years, since it's waited this long.

Even the opponents of AV estimate that the switch would cost about £250M, which is basically small change at a national level, especially since it's a one-time cost. One could also argue that, since it measurably improves the value of the consensus which elects the government, it would also improve spending efficiency of future governments, thereby paying for itself. But even if it didn't, if we're willing to spend £8B (and counting) to bring democracy to Iraq then surely we should be prepared to spend 3% of that on democratic fairness for ourselves. Whatever the arguments for and against AV, I don't think cost is a compelling one.

Well, I'm against this as my neighboring constituency would have gone to the Liberal Democrats.

Charlie Reams wrote:Which country was it that has disbanded their military completely and spent the money on schools and healthcare?

Costa Rica I think.

I agree with both of the points about cutting down spending on the army and legalising drugs: if England hadn't been involved in every single war ever then no-one would think of needing an army; and the reduction of crime from drug legalisation would be massive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w Here's the latest Zeitgeist movie. It's quite long but makes for interesting viewing. I highly recommend watching it if you can find the time.

And yes, It's Costa Rica that has no standing army. Using the "Pointless" rules for determining what a country is I'm sure there's more than one though.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I like [...] Margaret Thatcher

How old are you?

12 Phil, and there's a debate in school about her (unofficially). I am for.

There is a bit of contrafibularity in this.

...

You forgot to mention that Margaret Thatcher single-handedly invented Whippy's ice cream, thereby ruining your chances of winning the debate.

Mark James wrote: And yes, It's Costa Rica that has no standing army.

But they were invaded by Nicaragua in November (based on Google maps showing the border between the two in the wrong place!) and, of course, they have no proper army to drive them out. And, one could argue that, if they had had an army, Nicaragua might not have been so audacious!

Of course, we've heard virtually nothing about this over here because who cares about a little place in Central America!?

Karen Pearson wrote:

Mark James wrote: And yes, It's Costa Rica that has no standing army.

But they were invaded by Nicaragua in November (based on Google maps showing the border between the two in the wrong place!) and, of course, they have no proper army to drive them out. And, one could argue that, if they had had an army, Nicaragua might not have been so audacious!

Of course, we've heard virtually nothing about this over here because who cares about a little place in Central America!?

One could also argue that if there were no armies/borders/countries this would all be a moot point. We live on one planet with finite resources. If only someone could find a way to locate, distribute and use all of the earth's resources in an optimal and sustainable way in order to cater for the worlds needs and eliminate the need for armies/borders/countries. Oh wait, someone has; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Actually apologies for the above post, it's probably overly simplistic and a bit flippant. I'm just a big fan of the ideas proposed by the linked movie. As I say it's a bit long but there are summarised versions of it near by. And why is there still a squiggly red line under the word movie. How is it supposed to be spelled?

I had a watch of that movie. The problem with Zeitgeist stuff is it seems to sprinkle in some good points (often populist ones) with random baseless stuff whilst completely ignoring other issues. The Venus Project doesn't seem to be have much basis in reality unfortunately. I think a resource based economy if, and it's a big if, it did work would be so much better than what we have now. But I don't think people would be anywhere near as co-operative as that film or project makes out. There are other city projects based around resource based economies (RBEs), not looked at any of them but hopefully some of them have proper scientific basis.

I do think there'll be some pretty drastic changes to our way of life within decades as a result of resource shortages (unless something wipes billions of people out, which is also a distinct possibility). But what will happen is impossible to say. Scientific breakthroughs, or lack of, will make a huge difference obviously. Maybe by 2050 we'll be pumping water and greenhouse gases over to Mars, making both worlds much more habitable...

Mark James wrote:why is there still a squiggly red line under the word movie. How is it supposed to be spelled?

F-I-L-M

Fair point re the AV, although that's £250M wasted if the end result is no. But I guess at least it's everyone's no

Sorry, legalising drugs won't save money. It'll cost thousands, if not millions, in psychiatric treatments in the NHS, not to mention cancer, the long-term effects of drugs in lost usefulness of people throughout their lives, hypertension, weight and metabolism problems, heptalogy problems, kidney problems, time off work, etc., etc., etc. During my days of toking my favourite argument against legalisation was that they'd tax it. However, A few years down the line, I've seen some of the effects of even 'soft' drugs, and it ain't pretty. Sure, it doesn't affect everyone in the same way - my history never caught up with me (yet) - but you don't know until you try it if you'll be one of the unlucky ones.

Just say 'no', kids

Lesley Hines wrote:Fair point re the AV, although that's £250M wasted if the end result is no. But I guess at least it's everyone's no

Sorry, legalising drugs won't save money. It'll cost thousands, if not millions, in psychiatric treatments in the NHS, not to mention cancer, the long-term effects of drugs in lost usefulness of people throughout their lives, hypertension, weight and metabolism problems, heptalogy problems, kidney problems, time off work, etc., etc., etc. During my days of toking my favourite argument against legalisation was that they'd tax it. However, A few years down the line, I've seen some of the effects of even 'soft' drugs, and it ain't pretty. Sure, it doesn't affect everyone in the same way - my history never caught up with me (yet) - but you don't know until you try it if you'll be one of the unlucky ones.

Just say 'no', kids

Legalising drugs doesn't mean that everyone will start taking them. There may well be some sort of increase but how many people are there currently abstaining waiting for drugs to become legal before trying them?

The message that it sends out is all wrong. People assume alcohol's harmless because it's legal, and that's far from the case. I know people (kids under 18) that have thought that cannabis is 'legal' (it isn't) because it was downgraded. Hell, when I was a kid I thought cannabis was harmless. I read Mr Nice and his argument about importing "a few harmless herbs" and laughed and agreed with him at the time. 15-20 years and a lot more experience later and I think he deserved the sentence he got. I'm continually amazed at the number of people taking snow - most will get away with it but too many won't. It's not worth it.

Lesley Hines wrote:The message that it sends out is all wrong. People assume alcohol's harmless because it's legal, and that's far from the case. I know people (kids under 18) that have thought that cannabis is 'legal' (it isn't) because it was downgraded. Hell, when I was a kid I thought cannabis was harmless. I read Mr Nice and his argument about importing "a few harmless herbs" and laughed and agreed with him at the time. 15-20 years and a lot more experience later and I think he deserved the sentence he got. I'm continually amazed at the number of people taking snow - most will get away with it but too many won't. It's not worth it.

So do you think we should ban alcohol?

Meh, stable door, lock, etc. Plus alcohol's had the advantage in this country that it was the only way to purify drinking matter for a long time so westernised livers are better adapted to cope with it than say, Asian ones, that historically coped with brewed teas. Plus alcohol in moderation is fine, although granted there are a few that just don't understand moderation, and they're probably people with a similar psychology/biology to the ones that will develop drug problems.

If drugs are made too expensive people will still resort to the black market, which flourishes in all perceived 'vice areas' today (knock-off alcohol and rancid cheapo baccy are pretty rife even with the increased transport costs, and there are arguments to say that many of the duty increases have been countermanded by the black market). If they're made too cheap they're just available and costing the country money with all the health problems they cause. For example, the average tobacco smoker dies at 64, the average cannabis smoker at 44. There are obviously all sorts of socio-economic contributors to that (if you're stoned a lot you're not like to have a healthy diet & exercise yadda yadda yadda) but either way drugs aren't harmless. I've had lots of fun with them personally, but I've never thought they should be legalised.

Lesley Hines wrote:For example, the average tobacco smoker dies at 64, the average cannabis smoker at 44. There are obviously all sorts of socio-economic contributors to that (if you're stoned a lot you're not like to have a healthy diet & exercise yadda yadda yadda) but either way drugs aren't harmless.

Not sure how you're getting to "either way drugs aren't harmless". The average cannabis smoker dying at 44 (source? I'd be interested to know how they allow for all the people who have a joint very occasionally who would presumably push that average up) is basically irrelevant unless you can show what happens if you take the confounders you point out into account.

Lesley Hines wrote:Meh, stable door, lock, etc. Plus alcohol's had the advantage in this country that it was the only way to purify drinking matter for a long time so westernised livers are better adapted to cope with it than say, Asian ones, that historically coped with brewed teas. Plus alcohol in moderation is fine, although granted there are a few that just don't understand moderation, and they're probably people with a similar psychology/biology to the ones that will develop drug problems.

If drugs are made too expensive people will still resort to the black market, which flourishes in all perceived 'vice areas' today (knock-off alcohol and rancid cheapo baccy are pretty rife even with the increased transport costs, and there are arguments to say that many of the duty increases have been countermanded by the black market). If they're made too cheap they're just available and costing the country money with all the health problems they cause. For example, the average tobacco smoker dies at 64, the average cannabis smoker at 44. There are obviously all sorts of socio-economic contributors to that (if you're stoned a lot you're not like to have a healthy diet & exercise yadda yadda yadda) but either way drugs aren't harmless. I've had lots of fun with them personally, but I've never thought they should be legalised.

I don't buy that 44 statistic, that sounds mad to me.

Also I don't buy the lock stable door stuff. Alcohol addiction splits families, causes violence, turns people to crime, ruins lives, kills people. All the same reasons why people are against other drugs being legalised.

Lesley Hines wrote:Plus alcohol's had the advantage in this country that it was the only way to purify drinking matter for a long time so westernised livers are better adapted to cope with it than say, Asian ones, that historically coped with brewed teas.

Not heard of this before, what makes you think that? At a glance it seems implausibly quick for natural selection, since brewing only arrived in the Western world in about 2000BC which is 200 generations ago at most.

Lesley Hines wrote:The message that it sends out is all wrong. People assume alcohol's harmless because it's legal, and that's far from the case. I know people (kids under 18) that have thought that cannabis is 'legal' (it isn't) because it was downgraded. Hell, when I was a kid I thought cannabis was harmless. I read Mr Nice and his argument about importing "a few harmless herbs" and laughed and agreed with him at the time. 15-20 years and a lot more experience later and I think he deserved the sentence he got. I'm continually amazed at the number of people taking snow - most will get away with it but too many won't. It's not worth it.

I think another factor is the "it won't happen to me" mentality, that somehow the people who have died or had problems with it were to blame in some respect - that the were are all completely in control of our fate. Reminds me of my grandad who was involved in World War 2 (he was in the Green Howards) and told my father about how he kept telling someone to keep down in the tank rather than opening the top hatch and peeking around - the someone saying nothing would happen. Unfortunately it did and that was the end of him.

I suppose part of it is an ingrained survival thing. Given our history of plagues and killing each other being crippled by fear and the realisation of likely imminent death would just mean your chances of surviving and if there is a later living a good, (re)productive life are next to nil.

Michael Wallace, Jon O'Neill and Charlie Reams wrote:(source?)

Fair, although it's bedtime. I'll get back to you in the morning (NB not a cop-out, just up to my eyes in it with work )

Quick! Someone lock the thread! Victory is ours!

Lesley Hines wrote:People assume alcohol's harmless because it's legal, and that's far from the case.

Seriously Lesley, does anyone actually still believe that alcohol is harmless?

Lesley Hines wrote:For example, the average tobacco smoker dies at 64, the average cannabis smoker at 44.

I don't think even the most rabid anti-cannabis campaigner could claim this with a straight face. Where on earth did you get that one from?

Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has mentioned the trafficking, gang wars and other problems that are caused by drugs being illegal. I think this is much worse than any health problems that legalisation would cause. Aside from the more well known atrocities commited in Columbia and Afghanistan over the production and distribution of cocaine and heroin, even the illegal status of cannabis ensures horrendous human rights abuses here in the UK. Unless you know someone who grows it or you grow it yourself, you can't guarantee that by buying weed you aren't funding the factory farming industry where immigrants are brought into the country and made to work in cramped growing rooms for virtually nothing. Legalisation and regulation would allow people to source their cannabis and these crimes would eventually stop.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:Plus alcohol's had the advantage in this country that it was the only way to purify drinking matter for a long time so westernised livers are better adapted to cope with it than say, Asian ones, that historically coped with brewed teas.

Not heard of this before, what makes you think that? At a glance it seems implausibly quick for natural selection, since brewing only arrived in the Western world in about 2000BC which is 200 generations ago at most.

I dunno - evolution can happen fairly quickly if there is enough selection pressure. Lactose tolerance seems to have evolved in the last 10,000 years or so. I know that's longer, but I don't know at what point inthe past it was a done deal.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:Plus alcohol's had the advantage in this country that it was the only way to purify drinking matter for a long time so westernised livers are better adapted to cope with it than say, Asian ones, that historically coped with brewed teas.

Not heard of this before, what makes you think that? At a glance it seems implausibly quick for natural selection, since brewing only arrived in the Western world in about 2000BC which is 200 generations ago at most.

Check out this article: http://www.medicinenet.com/liver_cancer/article.htm It doesn't implicitly say westerners have developed a tolerance for alcohol but does show the instance of liver cancer is greater in Asia due to the rate of hepatitis b which can be brought on by toxic effects of alcohol.

Lesley Hines wrote:alcohol in moderation is fine

So are most drugs you could care to mention.

Lesley Hines wrote:drugs aren't harmless

I don't think anyone is saying that, but keeping them illegal doesn't decrease their harm, in fact it increases it. From additional materials added for profit, to fraternising with undesirable characters and to the unknowable levels of dosage and such like. As for cost to the NHS, considering drug abuse already costs the NHS, the additional cost that may occur from legalisation, I would argue, would be more than catered for by the expense saved on law enforcement and housing of convicted drug criminals in prison.

Now people will also bring up the possibility of taxing the drugs to make more money. With regards most drugs I would agree. With cannabis however things get a bit iffy. The one thing above all else that can give a thing value is scarcity. The less there is the higher the price. Marijuana can be grown in most environments where there are people with such ease and abundance as to make it virtually valueless and thus untaxable which is why I fear it is the real reason behind it's illegality.

Gevin Chipper wrote: I dunno - evolution can happen fairly quickly if there is enough selection pressure. Lactose tolerance seems to have evolved in the last 10,000 years or so. I know that's longer, but I don't know at what point inthe past it was a done deal.

Oh yeah, I deliberately didn't say it was impossible or anything. It just seemed surprising enough that it made me think "really?" and I wondered what I was missing. If it was used to purify water then that's pretty significant pressure, but I'd never heard of that before either. So still wondering.

Mark James wrote:Check out this article: http://www.medicinenet.com/liver_cancer/article.htm It doesn't implicitly say westerners have developed a tolerance for alcohol but does show the instance of liver cancer is greater in Asia due to the rate of hepatitis b which can be brought on by toxic effects of alcohol.

I'm not denying that Westerns have greater tolerance for alcohol (I have no idea about that), it would just seem surprising if it had evolved so quickly over such a large area for such a specific reason.

Mark James wrote:Now people will also bring up the possibility of taxing the drugs to make more money. With regards most drugs I would agree. With cannabis however things get a bit iffy. The one thing above all else that can give a thing value is scarcity. The less there is the higher the price. Marijuana can be grown in most environments where there are people with such ease and abundance as to make it virtually valueless and thus untaxable which is why I fear it is the real reason behind it's illegality.

Seems implausible to me. If you can tax corn then you can tax marijuana.

Mark James wrote:Marijuana can be grown in most environments where there are people with such ease and abundance as to make it virtually valueless and thus untaxable which is why I fear it is the real reason behind it's illegality.

Not sure how much experience you have with growing but growing weed that is half decent takes a good deal of skill and knowledge. Sure you can just plant a seed in a field and get a plant, but it won't be that good quality. Besides, the casual smoker would probably just buy their cannabis from a shop rather than grow their own. You can easily grow tobacco in your garden but hardly anyone does.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mark James wrote:Check out this article: http://www.medicinenet.com/liver_cancer/article.htm It doesn't implicitly say westerners have developed a tolerance for alcohol but does show the instance of liver cancer is greater in Asia due to the rate of hepatitis b which can be brought on by toxic effects of alcohol.

I'm not denying that Westerns have greater tolerance for alcohol (I have no idea about that), it would just seem surprising if it had evolved so quickly over such a large area for such a specific reason.

I agree it would be surprising if it had happened so quickly. I had been trying to find out how possible it was and numerous yet ultimately unsuccessful search engine results led me to that article which I felt I'd link to purely for interests sake rather than as proof of the evolutionary theory Lesley suggested.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mark James wrote:Now people will also bring up the possibility of taxing the drugs to make more money. With regards most drugs I would agree. With cannabis however things get a bit iffy. The one thing above all else that can give a thing value is scarcity. The less there is the higher the price. Marijuana can be grown in most environments where there are people with such ease and abundance as to make it virtually valueless and thus untaxable which is why I fear it is the real reason behind it's illegality.

Seems implausible to me. If you can tax corn then you can tax marijuana.

I'm willing to hold my hands up that I got this wrong.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Mark James wrote:Marijuana can be grown in most environments where there are people with such ease and abundance as to make it virtually valueless and thus untaxable which is why I fear it is the real reason behind it's illegality.

Not sure how much experience you have with growing but growing weed that is half decent takes a good deal of skill and knowledge. Sure you can just plant a seed in a field and get a plant, but it won't be that good quality. Besides, the casual smoker would probably just buy their cannabis from a shop rather than grow their own. You can easily grow tobacco in your garden but hardly anyone does.

Well I have George Cervantes book about indoor marijuana horticulture but I never got around to growing anything and I haven't even smoked in over a year. I know a plant in a field is lesser quality weed but I think I'd prefer that. The last time I was in Amsterdam the top quality stuff completely monged me out. Have to say I didn't know you could grow tobacco as easily as weed in your garden though.

I ate some marijuana yesterday. Does this count towards my five a day?

Mark James wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mark James wrote:Check out this article: http://www.medicinenet.com/liver_cancer/article.htm It doesn't implicitly say westerners have developed a tolerance for alcohol but does show the instance of liver cancer is greater in Asia due to the rate of hepatitis b which can be brought on by toxic effects of alcohol.

I'm not denying that Westerns have greater tolerance for alcohol (I have no idea about that), it would just seem surprising if it had evolved so quickly over such a large area for such a specific reason.

I agree it would be surprising if it had happened so quickly. I had been trying to find out how possible it was and numerous yet ultimately unsuccessful search engine results led me to that article which I felt I'd link to purely for interests sake rather than as proof of the evolutionary theory Lesley suggested.

Yep, fair enough.

Mark James wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Mark James wrote:Now people will also bring up the possibility of taxing the drugs to make more money. With regards most drugs I would agree. With cannabis however things get a bit iffy. The one thing above all else that can give a thing value is scarcity. The less there is the higher the price. Marijuana can be grown in most environments where there are people with such ease and abundance as to make it virtually valueless and thus untaxable which is why I fear it is the real reason behind it's illegality.

Seems implausible to me. If you can tax corn then you can tax marijuana.

I'm willing to hold my hands up that I got this wrong.

This isn't supposed to happen! Are you high or something?

JimBentley wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:People assume alcohol's harmless because it's legal, and that's far from the case.

Seriously Lesley, does anyone actually still believe that alcohol is harmless?

Lesley Hines wrote:For example, the average tobacco smoker dies at 64, the average cannabis smoker at 44.

I don't think even the most rabid anti-cannabis campaigner could claim this with a straight face. Where on earth did you get that one from?

Death by smoking. I can vouch for that fact, because I lived in those times. All my relatives except two who smoked, were dead before they were 70. the two exceptions were my aunt and uncle Douglas and Rose, who died when they were exactly 70. their son told me that he wouldn't like to die suffering like his mum and dad did. Most of my workmates who smoked were dead before they were 70, Others lingered on with their oxygen masks lying in their beds all day. I know this because I went to see them. One of them asked me how I kept so healthy. I thought that he should have known that already. Some of my workmates are still alive, and like myself, are more than eighty years old. None of us have ever smoked. Smokers can live in denial of these facts all they like. But there is one fact they can't deny, they stink.