Rebounder

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Lee Matthews is his agent apparently, incredible work from Lee

https://smiworld.co.uk/team/

Few ex city and south west players there. 

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. 

46 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

I think The US follows Cal's licencing, it's not free market, there's a limited number of highly regulated growers who pay for their licences plus a taxed cut of that they sell. Many used to be ex-illegal growers who were encouraged to go legit. Simple fact is their standards and costs cannot compete with illegal growers who drive them out of business and lack of provenance for users isn't a problem on the open market. Market expansion has hugely increased demand which has served only to increase the profits of the illegal traders.

Like all drugs, including tobacco & alcohol if it hadn't already been legalised you'd never do so today given the costs to society.

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. 

16 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Alleged - ha!

As for 'middle-class', for sure coke is used by the chattering classes though is now mostly traded, as Operation Scorpion recently demonstrated, within working class communities, it being comparatively cheap (or does one now consider Hartcliffe to be middle class.....)

For those repeating the myth that legalisation is the way forward just look at dope and The States. Been to some dangerous places around the globe in my time but never been more scared than with family in the Humboldt region of Northern California where legal growers have been hijacked by major crime and murder is ubiquitous.

That said, such is the lack of journalism in The Evil these days they even repeat The Grauniad's inaccuracy that the Police may 'remove passports'. They can't, only Her Maj may so do though they can issue football banning orders & HMPO may place valid passports on a restricted list that prevents customs and operators from accepting them when attempting to travel.

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. 

32 minutes ago, Slacker said:

I think someone may have touched on this but while decrimialising may be a good idea,I assume the stuff bought legally will be higher quality, and therefore more expensive, and the current suppliers will offer a much more impure version at a much lower cost which I imagine will be more affordable/desirable to the majority of consumers. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

Well the criminal gangs and enterprises would continue to supply other Class A Drugs , as they’ve always done , and there would be nil reduction in criminality or associated murders and violence. 

Its an easy And popular solution to throw out there , but massively complex

Heres three simple observations,  from your view , and there are dozens more 

 

Where does the cost of running this legal and heavily regulated drug supply come from - any tax wouldn’t even touch it , unless you increase the cost so much , it would become cost prohibitive and increase the risk of crime to fund users.

Existing criminal organisations would also simply , and easily , undercut the price ‘ offered by the state’   
 

You are almost certainly going to increase the number of users , ( For all the (true to a degree)  claims that it’s easier to order cocaine than Deliveroo it does require  you to have or acquire those contacts , legal and easy access will merely increase the size of the market , and users further ) increasing the number whose health suffers considerably and the effects on the NHS and the ‘system’

Legalising is an option , and one that should have consideration , but it’s hugely complex , without significant problem and not one I’d consider in relation to Class A Drugs

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. 

3 hours ago, TheReds said:

Cigarettes surely cannot be comparable, as for starters they don't turn people into complete and utter bellends, thinking they are invincible, causing violence and harm to others. I don't think it turns that many people to crime to pay for their habit, or affect their ability to go to work and do their job.

As for alcohol, what percentage of alcohol drinkers are/get addicted? What percentage of cocaine users are/get addicted - and then lead to getting on to other drugs like heroin etc? I am only guessing here, but would suggest that alcohol is overall less harmful than cocaine in general, hence its classification. What does cocaine versus alcohol do to a persons mental health? Longterm health/mental health? How many people who drink alcohol commit crime to drink alcohol versus drugs?

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.

5 minutes ago, 2015 said:

That depends on how much money they're willing to declare that they have. Unfortunately you have to prevent the ones at the bottom from buying for it to eventually stop and yes that means addicts and poor people have to be punished for the buying to dry up. The runners on the streets are not anywhere near as wealthy as the people that are above them. If the dealers lose their money and cannot buy that's on area that loses their supply and a win for everyone else IMO.

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. 

7 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Yep he is wrong, again. I know of people on the inside of it all to know enough about what goes on and the guys at the top have more money than most MPs and that's not even an exaggeration. Stupid amounts of money and suffering that is being caused because of pure greed.

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. 

25 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Thank you. You can drink way over your normal limit when on coke, but its the effects of the booze, not the gear that makes people act like *****. 

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. 

43 minutes ago, Waconda said:

What a classic this is.

Out performed yourself with this nonsense.

Obviously you were pushing it as it shows us somewhere near our final league positions but as with all of your spreadsheets upon further detailed inspection they are full of bias to suit your agenda.

Your personal vendetta is weird. 

On 16/04/2022 at 14:46, Southport Red said:

 

Fair play can't really argue with that can you. Scunthorpe collapsed. 

We have a few up in my parents loft I think. Next time I'm there I'll have a look. 

Nice pictures NTTDS and Ole

38 minutes ago, TomF said:

Back then winning it had little reward. Since it offered a place in the CL everyone has a go at it. 

True, but I think most fans would rather a night like tonight on the whole. 

22 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I struggle with these abbreviations - who is “MOL” ?!

Yeah sorry corrected! 

Whenever I see the scenes at West Ham it always reminds me of the disdain the Uefa/Europa Cup has been shown by UK teams at times. Villa for example under Martin O'Neil 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/aug/20/aston-villa-europa-cup

Detached from what most fans want I think. 

2 hours ago, Tafkarmlf said:

Captain is largely ceremonial these days, deals with fines etc. 

In terms of leaders, we have lots, but if their playing to instructions then they have to do that to stay in the team. 

Blood, guts and thunder is actually a rubbish motivational tool and passion doesn't always show that way either. 

I hear this a lot, but is it true? Are there any articles, or places where this idea comes from? Genuinely interested. 

2 hours ago, Bouncearoundtheground said:

Don’t think it’s uploaded mate, unless that’s just my phone 

Not there for me either. 

I was about 12. Great day out that we always spoke about fondly as we liked the stadium and it was easy getting there. Don't really remember the game. 

5 hours ago, steveybadger said:

Clinton Morrison has absolutely zero analysis, but when he does stumble upon something accidentally he always immediately repeats it. Listen to him next time he’s on!

That said for some reason I can’t help but like him - most pundits are rubbish but at least he’s cheerful and engaging. 

I think he works well on Soccer Saturday. Not heard him do commentary, but can see how it doesn't necessarily transfer. 

24 minutes ago, TomF said:

Stockport look like they’re heading back to the league after pretty horrible 10+ years 

One of the few teachers I liked was a Stockport fan so I am happy for him if he's still alive. 

5 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Key dates - 2022/23

Sky Bet EFL:

Season start (regular season) – 30 July, 2022

Championship pause – 12 November, 2022

Championship resumption – 10 December, 2022

Final day (regular season) – 6 May, 2023

Cheers that was a bit lazy of me I should have looked but hadn't had a coffee yet. 

26 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Sorry but nothing personal toward Andreas, but I hope he has a stinker and ends up on the losing side.

We don't want to lose him for a month next season and I want Wales to qualify! Entschuldigung Herr Weimann.

Pretty sure the season will be suspended for the tournament. Could be wrong though. Obviously a risk of injury and tiredness still. 

Before my time, but my Dad spoke about him all the time. I'll have a listen.