Elton John to perform his funeral hit at Amy Winehouse funeral

[Pazienza]

must be.

You must have missed my post Scose.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

You must have missed my post Scose.

I get your point. Maybe you're right as I actually don't know many people who could quit the stuff lol. I now quite a few p1ss heads who've quit though. Just my observations is all.

My claim was unsubstantiated it's just that I found it hard to believe esp after seeing long term (20+ years) effects of each of them. Oh well.

 

[Pazienza]

I get your point. Maybe you're right as I actually don't know many people who could quit the stuff lol. I now quite a few p1ss heads who've quit though. Just my observations is all.

It's not a dig at you or anyone - addictions are terribly hard to overcome. I have known a few that were seriously addicted, although I tended to distance myself as I don't find addicts pleasant to be around.

My point was not to say that heroin is unimportant or easy to quit, but rather than alcohol addiction is much more serious and destructive than many people realise.

I don't agree with the linked articles above by the way. I think Nutt had a clear propaganda purpose, deliberately skewed his results using a very strange formula, and that this was compounded by a compliant and credulous media who rarely bother to read the reports they write stories about.

The idea that booze and fags are "more harmful" (in the sense that everyone reading that headline would assume) than crack and heroin is wrong. In fact, the report does not even claim that they are, although the author of it seemed perfectly happy that people drew that erroneous conclusion from it.

 

[DashRiprock]

rite some things i am cross about:

every1 goin "oooh noo RIP Amy Winehouse" and it (and the nazi bloke wat dun the killin) bein all over the papers and the news. its like when diana or jade goody died, masses of people use it as excuse 2 feel sorry 4 themselves. wat happened to stiff upper lip? countryflap of softies :/

AS WELL

wat example does it set for children? its OK 2 do drugs if u are good at singing?!?!

AND MORE THAN THAT

If u have someone like Amy Winehouse, or that Pete Doherty bloke, who basically is obviously smacked out of faces on drugs alot of time, WHY DONT POLICE FOLLOW THEM AND CATCH THE DRUG DEALERS?!?!?!?!

that last one is the worst

 

[scose-no-doubt]

It's probably friends and staff that sell to them.

 

[the hare]

WHY DONT POLICE FOLLOW THEM AND CATCH THE DRUG DEALERS?!?!?!?!

Cos its probably the police's gear they are sellin !

 

[DashRiprock]

how cool would it be to go undercover and like spy on all the drugdealers and be in a boyband at the same time?

 

[Mr. Charts]

Of course an alcoholic with a name like Winehouse is on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Vorbis]

I don't agree with the linked articles above by the way. I think Nutt had a clear propaganda purpose, deliberately skewed his results using a very strange formula, and that this was compounded by a compliant and credulous media who rarely bother to read the reports they write stories about.

I was referencing the dominant scientific consensus rather than the views of one individual. It's worth looking at some of the linked articles along with the main one (1st link).

WHY DONT POLICE FOLLOW THEM AND CATCH THE DRUG DEALERS?!?!?!?!

A trader should know that there is little point in attempting to stem supply so long as demand is steady. All you do is raise prices, which with the drug industry is likely to lead to further problems. There is a great little article on this in "Trading and Exchanges"; I might try and find it later.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Mmm.....there is demand for portable tactical nuclear weapons, but sod the price, it's right to cut off supply.........

 

[Pazienza]

A trader should know that there is little point in attempting to stem supply so long as demand is steady.

I agree and I think that this leads to a fairly obvious conclusion, although one that most people would prefer not to confront.

 

[squall321]

stupid rich girl couldn't handle her drugs
i couldn't give a flying...................................

 

[DashRiprock]

A trader should know that there is little point in attempting to stem supply so long as demand is steady. All you do is raise prices, which with the drug industry is likely to lead to further problems. There is a great little article on this in "Trading and Exchanges"; I might try and find it later.

I dont know that book so if u can then cool

I also understand that curbing supply leads to shorter term price rises, which in turn acts as an incentive for further supply. but bottom line drugs are bad and the greater the risks to those involved in teh supply chain the better.

 

[TheBramble]

A heroin addiction, for example, does not create the same risk. Doubtless it is very unpleasant, as is overcoming a dependence upon any substance, but it is not physically dangerous to simply quit.

Sorry mate, but you're wrong. I had a 30+ year Heroin addiction which I was forced to suddenly stop when the convent ran out of supplies. If I hadn't had nun I would have gone crazy fo' sho'....

As for Amy, she's as valid a target for humour dead as a live, as is everyone and everything.

There is a lot of faux, ersatz (t2w is getting awfully highbrow these days) and fashionable grief contagion in evidence these days, but most of us have the capacity to see it for what it is. Best let your own conscience by your guide.

As a good old 'un once said:-

"Humour is the only test of gravity and gravity of humour. For a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious and a jest which will not bear a serious examination is certainly false wit".

 

[Vorbis]

I dont know that book so if u can then cool

Here it is, prohibition from an economic aspect :

"Many people believe that the laws against the illegal use of drugs are impossible to enforce effectively. Use remains high despite the large number of people who are in jail for producing, transporting, dealing, possessing, or using illegal drugs.
The illegal drug trade is highly lucrative in large part because it is illegal. The legal restrictions placed on the trade have decreased supply relative to demand, which has caused prices to be much higher than they otherwise would be. The legal restrictions also have allowed dealers to form territorial monopolies because competitors can hardly petition the government for relief under antitrust statutes. The high penalties for drug trafficking also make the penalties for murder committed to protect territorial monopolies relatively less significant.
The high prices of illegal drugs are responsible for much of the burglary, robbery, and prostitution in Western societies. Addicts who need their next fix must get it. The more expensive is the fix, the more crime they must commit. Since criminals often use force to commit these crimes, they expose those who do not use drugs to substantial personal risk.
The high prices of illegal drugs also cause users to become dealers in order to support their habits. These dealers have tremendous incentives to hook new clients. Ironically, because of this factor alone, usage is probably higher than it would be if drug usage and distribution were legal and regulated.
The huge wealth accumulated by drug dealers corrupts society. Criminals use their wealth to corrupt the legal system. Their wealth also corrupts the values of people who see how successful they are. The war on drugs is largely responsible for the extreme social instabilities found in many drug producing countries.
Although the restriction of insider trading fortunately has not had the same negative effects as the war on drugs, many people believe that the two problems share many essential aspects."

From "Trading & Exchanges - Market microstructure for practitioners" by Larry Harris.

The book is well woth a read by the way.

 

[Pazienza]

That's interesting Vorb, but I can see some major problems with it.

"Use remains high despite the large number of people who are in jail for producing, transporting, dealing, possessing, or using illegal drugs."

This is completely wrong. Very few users face any serious criminal sanction, particularly a custodial one. This is deliberate policy (I'm talking about the UK here, I don't know what the case is in the US, which is presumably what the author of the article refers to).

"The high prices of illegal drugs are responsible for..."

Drugs are not high-priced, they are remarkably cheap (especially in prison ). The price of drugs is not the reason why people steal and commit violence to pay for their habits.

Here it is, prohibition from an economic aspect :

"Many people believe that the laws against the illegal use of drugs are impossible to enforce effectively. Use remains high despite the large number of people who are in jail for producing, transporting, dealing, possessing, or using illegal drugs.
The illegal drug trade is highly lucrative in large part because it is illegal. The legal restrictions placed on the trade have decreased supply relative to demand, which has caused prices to be much higher than they otherwise would be. The legal restrictions also have allowed dealers to form territorial monopolies because competitors can hardly petition the government for relief under antitrust statutes. The high penalties for drug trafficking also make the penalties for murder committed to protect territorial monopolies relatively less significant.
The high prices of illegal drugs are responsible for much of the burglary, robbery, and prostitution in Western societies. Addicts who need their next fix must get it. The more expensive is the fix, the more crime they must commit. Since criminals often use force to commit these crimes, they expose those who do not use drugs to substantial personal risk.
The high prices of illegal drugs also cause users to become dealers in order to support their habits. These dealers have tremendous incentives to hook new clients. Ironically, because of this factor alone, usage is probably higher than it would be if drug usage and distribution were legal and regulated.
The huge wealth accumulated by drug dealers corrupts society. Criminals use their wealth to corrupt the legal system. Their wealth also corrupts the values of people who see how successful they are. The war on drugs is largely responsible for the extreme social instabilities found in many drug producing countries.
Although the restriction of insider trading fortunately has not had the same negative effects as the war on drugs, many people believe that the two problems share many essential aspects."

From "Trading & Exchanges - Market microstructure for practitioners" by Larry Harris.

The book is well woth a read by the way.

 

[barryb]

Thats not even funny, a young girl died a few days ago... you have an 18 year old daughter right?
How would you feel if you got a phone call to say she was dead? Normally my sense of humour is
all for banter but Amy was a very talented young girl, sadly her demons got the better of her

Oh Doomberg, you've just set me off...boo-hoo-hoo-hoo, blub blub blub

 

[Vorbis]

Another interesting article here :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14273938

The evidence is suggesting that addiction may be more to do with the individual rather than the substance.

I've always suspected this may be the case. I was a very heavy smoker for many years and was constantly trying to cut down to 20/day. I was amazed by people around me who would smoke maybe 5 a day or just on week-ends. For me this was impossible.

 

[Vorbis]

This is completely wrong. Very few users face any serious criminal sanction, particularly a custodial one.

I'm relying on memory here so I can't promise it's true, but I'm sure I read somewhere that a third of all the people imprisoned in the UK are in for drug-related offences. (May even have been more).

Drugs are not high-priced, they are remarkably cheap

I don't know about other drugs, but Cannabis has essentially no monetary value value at all apart from that created by prohibition, because it is so easy to grow.

 

[pboyles]

Candle under the Spoon..

Like the one he did at Mother Theresa's, Sandals in the Bin?