Alex

I've got some bong if you're interested.

Tremors isn't in the top 250.

Got to admit like, I loved a bit of alt-metal / grunge from the late 80s / early 90s (not to mention a canny bit of classic metal / rock). I fucking loved Faith No More and still do (upto and including Angel Dust).

Dacourt scored one against us for Leeds not long after it was first brought in I seem to remember. It ended up being moved into the box. Home game in the league which I think we went on to win after the decision fired up the crowd. Would've been the Robson era.

One you might like, Chez:

Icke claims he's been telling anyone who would listen about Savile for years. In the wake of the Savile scandal some of the press took him at his word and suggested this meant he may have been right (or at least had a point) all along. The slight problem for Icke's credibility here is that there is no record of him having mentioned Savile in relation to this until after Savile died and the scandal emerged. Icke has mentioned several well known people who he claims were involved in ritual sex abuse in the many books he has written and he never mentioned Savile once then either. He also had a list of these people on his website and Savile wasn't on it. The list is no longer on his site (although you can still find it elsewhere) and a cynic might suggest that's because it would make Icke look like a liar. I looked into Icke's claims because I thought that, if what he was saying about Savile was true (i.e. that he'd been telling all and sundry for years about him) then he might be onto something. The fact he didn't says a lot in my mind, i.e. what sort of person uses something like and jumps on the bandwagon purely to further their own fame and to try and demonstrate their own crediblity? If he's prepared to lie about that then I don't think you can trust much that comes out his gob.

I would definitely add some chicken as well.

It's that sort of hypocrisy that makes people question your motives and sincerity iyam.

The weight issue is a slightly odd one if it's true it was only 1.5 kilos (or about 3 lbs) as it seems like an excuse. What further complicated the matter was that with the various stories going back and forth it was not clear whether it was Ben Arfa trying to make out that he was being forced out (I think it first emerged in the French press) or if it was the club making a mountain out of a molehill just to get rid of someone they didn't want (quite possibly a bit of both). I think it's worth pointing out though that you have a manager who obviously favours a strong team ethic over individuals (fair enough in itself whatever you think of Pardew the manager) and then you bring in a player who has a history of fall outs and is the archetypal individual in a footballing sense. Then when said player falls out with the manager for not being a team player the rhetoric from the club tries to make out it's all the player's fault. In hindsight it seems like he was never going to be Pardew's cup of tea and we only signed him because he was cheap and he only came here because more attractive clubs weren't prepared to take the risk. Bearing all that in mind I don't think you can just point to the player when it was clearly a signing that lacked "planning"

Why would it be for you? I thought you rated him and didn't want him to leave. I find it particularly strange in your case because you've always wanted to see flair players like Lua Lua, Shane Ferguson and Marveaux be given a chance yet you've never applied the same standard to Ben Arfa when he's clearly more talented than all of them. He's more effective too, especially when on form. I admit that isn't as often as anyone would have hoped for or wanted but, none of the other players you've wanted to see play have been consistent either and certainly in the case of Marveaux and Ferguson they've been guilty of going missing in games too.

I can understand all the arguments about where the blame lies. I can't understand the apparent glee from people at being 'proven right' in their eyes now he's been cast aside, when he's obviously such an talented player.

Still got the Grandad collar one with the broon ale beer mat on the front. Loved that kit.

I'm glad somebody got the reference anyway.

I was largely basing that on an article in the Spectator I read a while back which in turn was based on the findings of a piece of research in the Lancet. To be honest, I can't remember if the scoring system they used scored the harm according to society as a whole or per capita based on the number of users. Edit: Actually I think it was The Economist article Rob posted at the start of this thread (which was a few years back, in my defence).

Lurk a bit. Gave up posting mainly due to lack of interest in the football (especially NUFC). Glad I don't give a fuck anymore tbh.

And Garfield.

I think it's an oversimplification to point to one's individual freedom as being the major consideration here. If look at certain drugs then they can potentially cause harm to the individual taking them. If you look at other ones, they have this potential whilst also being harmful to people not taking the drugs (generally speaking, as there will always be extreme examples). Ironically, alcohol is the most widely available and socially acceptable drug going and it's about the worst one for both of those factors. Whether the legal status of drugs makes things better or worse is more open to debate. I tend to think it makes things worse overall, but also think the importance of considering each one separately needs to be stressed. As ever though, I find it really depressing because the debates on places like this are far more honest and open than anything the tabloid morality would allow our politicians to discuss in public.

Not a very apt comparison though, is it? I mean, how many magic mushroom addicts are there kicking about? It's probably about the least harmful substance out there with little or no physical dependence issues so even if you'd loved it I don't think you'd have turned into a 10 a day man.

Thanks, Cath. Much appreciated.

Likewise, a self-facilitating media node could have guessed it's a phone auto-correcting the spelling.

I agree with you there. If you take an extreme example, then you are potentially 'hurting others' because you could have a heroin overdose which results in an ambulance being used etc. These things are finite resources, like everything else. Whether this is made worse by changing the law is more of a grey area though. I certainly don't agree with the legalise everything and tax it to the hilt approach for several reasons. However, there are options which might be better than the status quo which don't have to involve Asda selling smack kits.

A few things: I think moral arguments are problematic because everyone has a different take on morality but my point of view would be that the mental health problems caused by cannabis are not necessarily improved by its being illegal. I would cite cannabis use in this country as a perfect example of this. It's illegal but loads of people do it and relatively few encounter serious problems. Your point about increased tobacco use isn't one I particularly subscribe to either. It presupposes that legalisation (or more correctly decriminalisation) would lead to make consumption. I don't think that's true because I believe they smoke less in Holland than we do. I also think more honest education (which applies to drugs in general) would help, i.e. make it clear to people that it's a lot less damaging to smoke dope on its own as opposed to with tobacco. Some people will ignore that anyway but at least treat them like adults and let them make their own mind up. As to the last bit, there are dozens of countries where possession of cannabis is decriminalised or tolerated including several EU countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal) as well as places like Canada, parts of Australia and America. Even places like Russia.

That's not quite the point you made, even if that was what you meant. You were arguing that making alcohol illegal was more logical than making drugs legal. It clearly isn't for the reasons I've given, i.e. it's completely unworkable and would cause more harm than good. On the other hand, I think certain changes in the drug laws could be beneficial to society as a whole. No one thinks for a moment there's some magic cure, it's just some people think criminalising (often vulnerable) people whilst lining the pockets of gangsters isn't the best way forward. There's also the obvious point that there isn't a 'one size fits all' approach because things like cannabis, cocaine and heroin are very different. Also, I don't think anyone is actually using the 'spasticated logic' you're accusing them of. It's just the type of lazy thinking which allows you kid yourself you're morally and intellectually superior to others without properly engaging with them. Whatever you might suppose I think about you and whatever arguments we've had in the past I think you're capable of being much more insightful than that.

What's logical about that? What you're advocating is deregulation of a substance which is so easy to produce that prisoners manage it with some fruit, sugar, water and a plastic bag. How long would it take before anyone who wanted to would produce their own booze? That's without even considering how quickly smuggling would flood the market. Even if you could prevent smuggling (which isn't remotely realistic) or ban it worldwide (ditto), then the homemade stuff would be everywhere. It would most likely taste like shit on the whole too, so you'd be actively discouraging many people who enjoy the odd glass of wine or whatever with a meal / of an evening etc., i.e. those who enjoy the taste and chilling out rather than getting drunk. Meanwhile pissheads and people with genuine drink problems would create and obtain what would be, in many cases, a dangerous product (both in terms of consumption and risks of fire / explosion.) There would still be the public health issues of death, addiction etc. (arguably more so) but the treasury wouldn't get the money which helps offset that. On top of that, it would cost an absolute fortune were you to try and police the ban.

It's difficult to know what to write but I just wanted to say how saddened and shocked I am by this news. I heard about this yesterday but I still feel empty inside when I think about it. I met Jon on a number of occasions and he was a genuinely nice lad but, just as importantly, he was someone who didn't take himself seriously and who you could have a laugh with. This was obvious to anyone who encountered him either in person or on here (not to mention on Newcastle-Online where I know he also had many friends). Goodbye, Jon.