Jump to content

Rebounder

Members
  • Posts

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

215

Recent Profile Visitors

891 profile views
  1. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/15/world/stonehenge-defaced-by-soccer-followers.html
  2. The greens and blues. I remember listening to a podcast about Byzantium and there were long sections on it. They were often used by different ruling factions to dominate the other and I think they potentially played a role in overthrowing a leader but it's ages since I listened to it. There's and article about it, but I just skimmed. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/
  3. Yeah have listened to quite a few including Campbell's which was great.. Found some of them a bit samey and full of lad stories, but I was probably over listening during the lockdown so will dip back into a few more. Will listen to Orr's in that case cheers.
  4. Need to get around to listening to this one. I'm quite interested in the stories from Refs. Is the Orr interview that different to the OSIB one? Suspect many of the stories are along the same lines but may have a dip in.
  5. https://smiworld.co.uk/team/ Few ex city and south west players there.
  6. Personally quite enjoyed the bits of the second half I saw. Feyenoord were pushing and Roma defended really well. Quite enjoyed watching the UCL this year. It's actually nice to see some of the other side's in Europe that hardly get a look in due to the dominance of money in the Champions League and these two are hardly small teams. Of course European competitions could be much better, but I doubt that will happen under Uefa.
  7. Yeah free market was probably an oversimplification, however there is a difference between their models (which are different from state to state) and others that are out there, how the products are sold, by who, produced, advertised, for profit etc. I volunteered within Transform Drug Policy Foundation and I never heard anyone suggest that we should be moving towards a the models in the US it was usually the opposite. It wasn't in any of their documentations on legal regulation blueprints at the time. This article addresses some of the pros and cons of regulation in America so far: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20210518.36548/full/ America's its own beast too with massive social problems playing out across the country. There approach to the drug war has been so extreme, and I am sure their approach to regulation will also have massive problems. It doesn't mean it would be the same here. Most drugs have existed long before they were illegal. They weren't solely made illegal on grounds of safety and evidence, but on ideology. https://transformdrugs.org/blog/a-short-history-of-the-misuse-of-drugs-act Alcohol and tobacco companies had a huge interest in seeing drug use cracked down upon and helped fund many anti drug campaigns. They also wouldn't make Alcohol illegal now due to the cost to society and the increase in risk. I'm not as commited to this anymore to be honest but there are massive improvements we could make to society and individual health if we took different approaches. The government is already backtracking from their hard-line approach seen in the early 2010 due to it increasing deaths and inequality.
  8. That assumes that USA's free market approach is the only route to take though doesn't it? I don't know anyone in the UK advocating for that. Uruguay took a different approach that was possibly to far the other way in its restrictive approach, but would be a model I would lean to personally and is one that other countries in Europe are moving more towards.
  9. It's been a while since I've looked into it, but my understanding is that governments could access and produce cheap substances in mass. Many of them could be produced legally here. The cost of policing is huge and the drug market is a billion dollar industry that is currently untaxed. The price would have to be competitive and generally people don't want to die/buy things that aren't what they say they are. A small bag of heroin may be cheap, but it's hardly working and may have other synthetic opiates in it. Fentynal for example. (Possibly heroin would be under a prescription model anyway) I don't think we would have to pay more, but I would pay more for a genuine product that I could dose properly and wasn't going to kill me. Dealers control the market now, but would it be worth their time and risk of prison for a much smaller market share? It's not a silver bullet but... Some people do buy fake/low cost alcohol and tobacco, but it's a very small amount I think? Usually more common in places where alcohol is hard to get hold of - thinking of those deaths in Russia a couple of years ago. Maybe wrong though particularly with the increasing costs.
  10. I agree it's definitely complex. There is extensive research that has been done into this including with trials and a lot of the stuff you have raised has been addressed by Transform Drug Policy Foundation in their various papers. 100 percent it would need to be affordable. Just to use Heroin as an example - The state can and does quite easily produce Opiates at low prices that are free of other additives. They can afford to sell it at much lower prices than someone could having to go to all the trouble of transporting it from Afghanistan. There was a study in Liverpool in the late 80's where a Liverpool doctor had used loopholes to provide heroin to people who use opiates. The results were really positive. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/ex-undercover-cop-says-widnes-11854487.amp There is a massive difference between legal regulation and free market capitalist approach to selling drugs in my view. I wouldn't use America's approach to selling cannabis for example. I've not checked recently but the first studies showed the use of cannabis dropped particularly amongst school children. So many issues of substance use are created by the classing system and the criminality that surrounds it. It amplifies the negatives and does nothing to protect people. It creates stigma of using substances that means people can't access support and help early. Most of the people I know who develop longer term problems have childhood trauma that has been untreated and so we need early intervention work in place - unfortunately waiting times for CHAMS are insane. Personally I'd be looking to legally regulate opiates first. None of this is particularly radical - "The war on drugs" was a radical move and we shouldn't marry ourselves to this ideolgy forever. No easy answers and maybe the truth is in between.
  11. Professor David Nutt believes alcohol to be the most dangerous. Unfortunately he was sacked from his role on the drug advisory board as it wasn't the answer that the government wanted. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/professor-david-nutt-former-government-adviser-says-alcohol-is-most-dangerous-drug-11909379 I would say that alcohol is worse on most of those factors. All drugs are shit to be addicted too, but the physical and psychological dependency of alcohol are pretty severe as I'm sure many of us here will know. Crack is another story too of course. I don't find grading drugs helpful to be honest. Ultimately all substance use is potentially harmful and reducing risk through education and access to support are key. You also end up with weird concepts of what drugs are okay and what aren't. As we see with alcohol for example. My personal experience is alcohol has been most destructive for me, but it will be different for others. As it's been mentioned I went to a talk by the doctor who was Head of the team that decriminalised drug use in Portugal when I was there. He said they would never go back to the old ways, but the only reason why they were able to get the rules changed were because middle class children were dying of heroin and they put pressure on the government due to them refusing to accept their children should be criminalised. In terms of reducing harm it's been a success. It's nice to see drug regulation talk being mainstream. We are doing some good things now - Loop are drug testing regularly in Bristol now. The harm reduction van up in Scotland where they let people inject safely. Some better stuff being done with younger people. Still a long way to go, but a lot of this stuff seemed impossible ten years ago.
  12. They've been trying that for 30 plus years it doesn't work and makes things worse. I'm not a massive fan of Neil Woods (ex undercover cop pushing for reform) but he outlines quite a lot why this has failed and the harder they pushed the worse it got. Think he's got a show coming out based on his book soon.
  13. Staggering amounts of money floating around. I'm not really sure how people afford coke to be honest. I always felt that people who front line deal weren't really the ones making the money more the people in the background dealing with logistics. May be different for coke. You're right about the greed and the laws play directly into their hand.
  14. I would argue it's both due to the combined affects, but agree with your points. I wrote a really lengthy post on the Billy Sharp topic but deleted it before posting as I felt I went off on a tangent, but football clubs and police focusing on cocaine use is ignoring the elephants in the room such as alcohol and also some of the dynamics in play across society. I'll copy in what I wrote anyway: It's very unlikely that someone is using cocaine without also using alcohol in my experience. Which turns into Cocaethylene. https://www.healthline.com/health/cocaine-and-alcohol which can result in all sorts of longer term difficulties and increase some of the negative behaviour. Not sure how much research has been done about the final part, but it makes some sense. I don't think you can really pin it on cocaine alone. I've seen plenty of people act out just on alcohol, me included, but cocaine mixed has long been known to increase negative behaviour. I think the general feeling is that Cocaine use has increased, but without seeing the stats I'm not sure. (2020 they said it hadn't changed, but lockdowns may well have increased use since then as it generally increased over that period) I've always worked in and around substances and they've been a part of my life outside of work too so my vision is blurred as I feel they are everywhere and always have been. As others have pointed out there's much more than just substance use going on. What is it about (primarily) men that sees them want to act in this way in big groups? Why does football seem to be a particular draw? How is the history of football violence and the scene around it presented to young people now? What is it offering to them? (I just want to point out that whilst I'm interested in people's motivations acting like this person has is no excuse and doesn't really need a deep retrospection. Being intoxicated isn't an excuse and you have to take responsibility for your actions.) I remember a few of my friends getting sucked into similar patters when we were 16-18 years old. I drifted off and got into raving instead but I think we were seeking similar things. Not sure if they are still out there now. Most people take substances and drink alcohol without causing themselves and others problems. Whilst I appreciate that some think the police might have a role to play they can't stop substance use so I'd always prefer a more harm reduction informed approach including around alcohol use. Appreciate this might be hard in this particular group of people and the environment, but I think it has a role to play.
×
×
  • Create New...