Alex

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.

Spare ticket's now gone btw.

This has now gone to a good home just in case anyone was thinking about getting in touch at the last minute. Enjoy the game, lads and lasses.

As mentioned elsewhere: I've got a spare ticket for this one if anyone's interested. It's £10 (o.n.o.) and it's in the East Stand. I can arrange to meet anyone and hand over the ticket before the game. PM me if you're interested.

Hello peeps, I've got a spare ticket for this one if anyone's interested. Downside is it's next to me and Tooj. It's a tenner (o.n.o.) and it's in the East Stand. I can arrange to meet anyone interested before the game. Not too bothered if I can't shift this as it's all for a good cause but I just thought I'd give people on here the opportunity to not only see but meet a couple of legends too PM me if interested. Ta

I was thinking that like. About cooking a curry from a classic Italian cook book I mean. I've already had a wank.

I've never suggested for a moment that we haven't bought very well at times recently. But, taking into account the rest of what you say, I think you'd probably agree with my earlier point. I.e. the stated aim of finishing top 8 each season is perhaps at touch at odds with the reality behind the scenes.

I'm sure you know that had very little to do with the point I was making, which was in relation to the budget restraints in place at the club. I just cited those two to demonstrate that doing something like finishing 5th as a one off is relatively easy to thing to achieve. In that sense, the examples I gave were pertinent.

I've been to Oradour-sur-Glane. Highly recommended but very weird, given the history, as you'd expect. I spend a week in Limousin about 3 or 4 years ago. We flew to Limoges as Flybe went there from Newcastle and I had some loyalty points to use up. It's a beautiful, unspoilt corner of France. We also went to the Dordogne and Cognac which aren't too far away (and the French roads are very good).

CT, I know you like a bit of 80s stuff so this is dedicated to you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

Quite, but I'd counter it's unsustainable. Loads of sides have had one good season in the top flight on a low budget then fallen away. Coppell's Reading, Ipswich under Burley are two that spring to mind. Can you name a side that has done it consistently in your lifetime? With all the factors I mentioned that is, which would immediately rule out Arsenal under Wenger and Moyes at Everton.

Canny that like. What did you win?

I think he actually thinks it's quite simple but what he's actually asking for is nigh-on impossible. Basically you've got an owner who's never owned a club before with a chairman who's never worked in football before. Their stated aim is a team consistently finishing in the top 8. They're hoping to do this with more or less zero net spend, a low paid manager, a small and inexperienced backroom staff, a small squad (in terms of quality outside the first XI anyway), a small scouting network and low player wages (in relative terms). I've probably missed something there as well. So, in other words you've got two blokes with no prior experience in the game trying to achieve something that to the best of my knowledge has never been achieved in the English game. Even assuming you got a manager in who could work under those constraints and produce good results over a few seasons (not going to happen imo but anyway) then it would only be a matter of time before he went to a bigger, better job. So even if you achieved the nigh-on impossible you'd probably have to start again in 3 years or so.

Bruges is very nice like. Stay off the main square though as the restaurants / cafes are very much overpriced tourist traps and the bars are very dear there too. It's easy to get round (the medieval centre is very compact) and it's beautiful. There's loads of nice little bars and cafes. I'd recommend doing a walking tour but just a self-guided one rather than with a guide and a large group. The beer is amazing and the chips and chocolates are bad either. Go up the Bell Tower and have a look at Jesus' blood too (it looks like a rusty turd / dodgy bit of chorizo). Keep away from the alcoves though. Ghent is meant to be mint as well (didn't have time to go when we were there) and it's only about 20 mins away by train.