General Election July 2024
Discussion
robemcdonald said:
Thanks for sharing - had a good laugh at that and it reminded me I’ve got to replace the kitchen this year and I’ll do it myself - we don’t get that option with goverments 
B'stard Child said:
robemcdonald said:
Thanks for sharing - had a good laugh at that and it reminded me I’ve got to replace the kitchen this year and I’ll do it myself - we don’t get that option with goverments Fast forward a few years, swap some names and recycle for Britain.
blueg33 said:
Is a drug addict weak? Or are they ill like an alcoholic? What lead to them taking drugs? It’s often an illness like depression.
They can’t really be judged within knowing the full story.
Totally agree! On top of that, I find the whole notion of "have you ever tried drugs" as a Gotcha question says far more about the asker than it does the answerer, and not in a good way.They can’t really be judged within knowing the full story.
Have I taken illegal drugs? Yes I have. Back when I was at Uni 25yrs ago weed was a fair bit cheaper than booze, it didn't stop me from graduating with a solid 2:1, I had no issues stopping after I graduated, and I've had a perfectly respectable career and done a decent job of raising a family ever since. If anyone sees an issue with that, I'd seriously question their judgement.
I've also seen a distant family member lose her career and her husband because of drugs. Doubtless Crippo would view that as a sign of weakness that would make her totally unsuited to holding public office without, as you say, bothering to find out the back story.
In a story that is infinitely more common in the States, she became addicted to prescription painkillers after being knocked off her motorbike and having to have her leg pinned back together again with lots of titanium. In a world without Crippo, she might still be married and in a decent career because she might've been honest about her growing addiction much more rapidly and sought help dealing with it rather than hiding it because she was ashamed and feared the judgement of
Having said all of that, I do think that candidates and MPs should be randomly tested for both drugs and alcohol. The difference is that I wouldn't view them as weak and chuck them out. I would, however, want to see them given any treatment necessary to help them perform their jobs.
Quite apart from anything else, I'd have far more confidence in a recovered addict's ability to brinf in policies to reduce the harm addiction does not only to addicts but also to their communities and society as a whole than I would in a contemptuous Victorian like Crippo.
272BHP said:
Crippo said:
I do t think it’s irrelevant to know a candidates position on drug taking. I’m socially conservative and view drug takers as weak.
That's an awfully big net you have cast.Prescription drugs? non-prescription drugs? recreational drugs? legal drugs? semi-legal drugs? legal drugs that can be used recreationally?
I could go on.
Edited by pingu393 on Saturday 29th June 09:43
pingu393 said:
272BHP said:
Crippo said:
I do t think it’s irrelevant to know a candidates position on drug taking. I’m socially conservative and view drug takers as weak.
That's an awfully big net you have cast.Prescription drugs? non-prescription drugs? recreational drugs? legal drugs? semi-legal drugs? legal drugs that can be used recreationally?
I could go on.
FiF said:
I've been in a job where regularly tested for drugs and alcohol. Plus short notice of test without warning, and failure to turn up within a designated time was also a disciplinary offence. Not a problem to me, and if it's a problem to others then that raises questions.
Tbh, I don't think it does - many drugs stay detectable for a staggering time in comparison to the effects.So you could quite happily have a relaxing joint on a Friday evening instead of a bottle of wine, yet get done and lose your job three weeks later.
What random drugs testing does do in some circumstances, is shift the drugs being taken. Weed is too risky as it stays detectable for a month, coke is nice cause it disappears in a couple of days...
"The true cost of Labour’s Net Zero plans is slowly being revealed and the sums are staggering"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/labour...
After reaching £650bn while realising that storage was barely mentioned (didn't see any costing for it) and with the sums well below those already published e.g. CCC / Oxford profs, there were already more than a trillion reasons to leave Labour's 2030 fantasy fiction to the dreamers and make a cup of tea. The DT has hardly lived up to its supposed reputation with such lowballing. Watch the unions and Rayner over the next two to three years.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/27/labour...
After reaching £650bn while realising that storage was barely mentioned (didn't see any costing for it) and with the sums well below those already published e.g. CCC / Oxford profs, there were already more than a trillion reasons to leave Labour's 2030 fantasy fiction to the dreamers and make a cup of tea. The DT has hardly lived up to its supposed reputation with such lowballing. Watch the unions and Rayner over the next two to three years.
pingu393 said:
272BHP said:
Crippo said:
I do t think it’s irrelevant to know a candidates position on drug taking. I’m socially conservative and view drug takers as weak.
That's an awfully big net you have cast.Prescription drugs? non-prescription drugs? recreational drugs? legal drugs? semi-legal drugs? legal drugs that can be used recreationally?
I could go on.
Edited by pingu393 on Saturday 29th June 09:43
Sway said:
FiF said:
I've been in a job where regularly tested for drugs and alcohol. Plus short notice of test without warning, and failure to turn up within a designated time was also a disciplinary offence. Not a problem to me, and if it's a problem to others then that raises questions.
Tbh, I don't think it does - many drugs stay detectable for a staggering time in comparison to the effects.So you could quite happily have a relaxing joint on a Friday evening instead of a bottle of wine, yet get done and lose your job three weeks later.
What random drugs testing does do in some circumstances, is shift the drugs being taken. Weed is too risky as it stays detectable for a month, coke is nice cause it disappears in a couple of days...
This leads to the commonly held belief, it's only a bit of puff, harmless, and is just a route into people moving onto other more harmful habits as you imply. Which also leads to sharing our roads and workplaces, for example, with others still off their tits from the night before. If we don't want individuals abusing alcohol in that state, that goes for drugs too imho.
Trouble is, whilst the routes to market may operate in different lanes to avoid direct competition, they're also just different sides of the same violent organised criminal coin and the finances go to fund other undesirable activities.
Kermit power said:
blueg33 said:
Is a drug addict weak? Or are they ill like an alcoholic? What lead to them taking drugs? It’s often an illness like depression.
They can’t really be judged within knowing the full story.
Totally agree! On top of that, I find the whole notion of "have you ever tried drugs" as a Gotcha question says far more about the asker than it does the answerer, and not in a good way.They can’t really be judged within knowing the full story.
Have I taken illegal drugs? Yes I have. Back when I was at Uni 25yrs ago weed was a fair bit cheaper than booze, it didn't stop me from graduating with a solid 2:1, I had no issues stopping after I graduated, and I've had a perfectly respectable career and done a decent job of raising a family ever since. If anyone sees an issue with that, I'd seriously question their judgement.
I've also seen a distant family member lose her career and her husband because of drugs. Doubtless Crippo would view that as a sign of weakness that would make her totally unsuited to holding public office without, as you say, bothering to find out the back story.
In a story that is infinitely more common in the States, she became addicted to prescription painkillers after being knocked off her motorbike and having to have her leg pinned back together again with lots of titanium. In a world without Crippo, she might still be married and in a decent career because she might've been honest about her growing addiction much more rapidly and sought help dealing with it rather than hiding it because she was ashamed and feared the judgement of
Having said all of that, I do think that candidates and MPs should be randomly tested for both drugs and alcohol. The difference is that I wouldn't view them as weak and chuck them out. I would, however, want to see them given any treatment necessary to help them perform their jobs.
Quite apart from anything else, I'd have far more confidence in a recovered addict's ability to brinf in policies to reduce the harm addiction does not only to addicts but also to their communities and society as a whole than I would in a contemptuous Victorian like Crippo.
FiF said:
Is the detailed research with proper double blind studies in place to determine the true short and long term effects of all the increasing multitude of new variations and strains that are on sale? No.
This leads to the commonly held belief, it's only a bit of puff, harmless, and is just a route into people moving onto other more harmful habits as you imply. Which also leads to sharing our roads and workplaces, for example, with others still off their tits from the night before. If we don't want individuals abusing alcohol in that state, that goes for drugs too imho.
Trouble is, whilst the routes to market may operate in different lanes to avoid direct competition, they're also just different sides of the same violent organised criminal coin and the finances go to fund other undesirable activities.
You've just managed to perfectly sum up almost all of the reasons for legalising cannabis! This leads to the commonly held belief, it's only a bit of puff, harmless, and is just a route into people moving onto other more harmful habits as you imply. Which also leads to sharing our roads and workplaces, for example, with others still off their tits from the night before. If we don't want individuals abusing alcohol in that state, that goes for drugs too imho.
Trouble is, whilst the routes to market may operate in different lanes to avoid direct competition, they're also just different sides of the same violent organised criminal coin and the finances go to fund other undesirable activities.
1. Strains do get tested, and can be given official strength ratings similar to ABV on booze.
2. Because it's no longer illegal, health/police authorities can provide guidance on legal limits for driving, again similar to alcohol.
3. The only reason cannabis is ever a gateway to harder drugs is because the same dealers sell both. Make cannabis legal and you break that link.
4. If you remove the stigma for using cannabis overall, it becomes much easier to ramp up the stigma against doping and driving, much as happened against drinking and driving.
The other two you've not included that spring to mind are:
a) If it's legal you can regulate and tax it.
b) Given the number of people who think nothing of smoking it walking down the street already, despite being one of the strongest and most identifiable odours out there, at least legalising it would remove the undermining effect of a law that is clearly not policed.
uk66fastback said:
pingu393 said:
119 said:
Amazing how many people thag have gone through life without needing to take recreational drugs, even more so not actually knowing what it contains..
I assume it was a grammatical error, but nobody NEEDS to take recreational drugs.
119 said:
uk66fastback said:
pingu393 said:
119 said:
Amazing how many people thag have gone through life without needing to take recreational drugs, even more so not actually knowing what it contains..
I assume it was a grammatical error, but nobody NEEDS to take recreational drugs.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff