ictchris

Good result for us tonight, Foran seems to have made the difference. Can't wait to see him rummell up partick this weekend. Well done to County, never thought they'd do it at the second attempt.

Garry Wood scores for County, 1-1.

Dundee------------ +11--------- 50 pts ICT ---------------- +20 -------- 49 pts Pars --------------- +10 --------- 47 pts County ------------ +7 ---------- 43 pts Queens------------- +9 ---------- 40 pts Partick ------------- +5 ---------- 39 pts

Dundee------------ +12--------- 52 pts ICT ---------------- +20 -------- 49 pts Pars --------------- +10 --------- 47 pts County ------------ +7 ---------- 43 pts Queens------------- +8 ---------- 39 pts Partick ------------- +5 ---------- 39 pts My B in Maths Higher was two years well spent.

As things stand now: Dundee------------ +12--------- 52 pts ICT ---------------- +19 -------- 49 pts Pars --------------- +10 --------- 47 pts County ------------ +7 ---------- 43 pts Queens------------- +8 ---------- 39 pts Partick ------------- +5 ---------- 39 pts

County fans being interviewed. They are all tinks.

Richard Gordon says Airdrie haven't won away all season? They beat Dundeh 1-0 at Dens Perk on the 3rd of January. Table as we head to kick off Dundee------------ +11--------- 49 pts ICT ---------------- +17 -------- 46 pts Pars --------------- +10 --------- 46 pts County ------------ +7 ---------- 43 pts Queens------------- +9 ---------- 39 pts Partick ------------- +5 ---------- 38 pts

Team: foran and sanchez back. Bulvitis and Odhiambo out.

Yes, he played a few league cup ties when we were in the SPL. He left for Accies.

Have you been watching this? My team would be: ----------------------------Esson-------- ---------------------- --Proctor-----Tokely-------------Munro--- ---Golabek--- ------------------Duncan---------Cox----- ----------------- -------Hayes----------Sanchez---------Foran- ------------ ------------------------Rooney----------- -------------------- Just because Eagle was OK for 45 minutes doesn't mean we should start ripping the side that has gone twelve games unbeaten up. I wasn't impressed with Bulvitis on Saturday and think Butcher might revert to Rosscoe at centreback for the full game this time. Odhiambo was also poor, Sanchez might be a better option in the deeper lying three.

My mate just sent me this picture of the road going past Dens park

Presumably the state should intervene in far more aspects of our lives to prevent us hurting ourselves - perhaps the governmetn should set a diet for all citizens or an exercise regime? That's an argument for legalising drugs!

I thought you had already accepted the need for the state to protect people from unsafe drugs earlier in the thread. Who do you think is going to provide the information and regulation that you speak of? The companies who produce the drugs? There are countless examples of companies who are willing to mislead the public about the safety of their products in order to sell more of them. If we are subject to unregulated advertising and marketing then our sentinence is compromised. It is essential that the state educates its citizens and regulates the companies who seek to sell to them in order to allow us to make choices that are informed by evidence rather than advertising. I think that industry regulators should provide information on products - if this information is found to be fradulent then it's the place of the state to prosecute these people. However, I don't think that many providers of drugs (or any other product) would deliberately lie on their information as they would be found out very quickly and their business would be crippled. If Chris' Cocaine Consortium Ltd were selling 25% pure coke but advertising it at 75% pure people would find out and, first of all, buy coke from somewhere else and then report CCC Ltd to the regulator. I don't think that if regulations were relaxed, Coca Cola would change their recipe or Cadbury's would start replacing sugar with ground up glass. One example I can recall is that in Russia one mafia group imported a load of industrial alcohol (subject to tiny tax) then re-bottled it and sold it as vodka, at a huge mark up. While that might be a good scam for some criminals, it isn't a good business. If cocaine was legal then the companies providing it would, I imagine, take great care to ensure their product was as safe and transparent as possible. Clearly the state has a role here - the state does have a role to play to ensure that consumers aren't deliberately mislead. I dont' think the state should have a role to play in preventing adults from chosing to get high or drunk or fat though, that's the difference and that's what I was getting at. People do things that will harm themselves all the time, every day. I am currently eating a bowl of ice cream with chocolate buttons - very fattening and unhealthy. If I eat this all the time, it's harmful. Before my dinner I drank a bottle of liquid that was 4.8% poison. This weekend I will probably smoke a packet of products that will increase my chances of getting heart disease or cancer. I am balancing off what I enjoy with the impact it has on me, that's what people do with drugs. Most people who take cocaine, for example, don't take it every half an hour. The state doesn't have a duty of care to protect me from harming myself. The state should protect me from others who want to harm me or infringe on me, it shouldn't decide which of my rights are worth defending and prosecute me if I don't agree. Another point is that drugs aren't that dangerous - hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people take ecstacy every weekend, deaths are massivley rare.

Keep your chin up mate. I'm sure that you'll get another gig after being binned from Crimewatch.

ANyone who has watched us play at Ibrox or Parkhead and still says they have a 'favoured' OF team needs sectioned. Old Firm fans are the biggest bunch of underclass, trampy minks I've ever laid my eyes on. The only reason they latch onto their club is the prospect of constant success which distracts them from their impoverished, miserable existence, mainly consisting of benefit fraud, drug abuse and incestual sex. They are absolute scumbags.

It's not just harming you though. What about the people who are exploited to make the drugs, people who are killed as a result etc etc. It's not just harming you though. What about the people who are exploited to make the drugs, people who are killed as a result etc etc. All that is caused by prohibition forcing the production of drugs into the hands of organised crime with the exception of cannabis which is a weed which can easily be grown by anyone thus causing absolutely no harm to anyone but the user. Prohibition creates crime. As birddog says, the illegality of drugs causes the vast majority of problems with them.

"Yes officer, I know I was speeding and driving dangerously. I was experimenting with life" "Yes officer, I know I could have shot myself with the gun. I was experimenting with life" "Yes officer, I know the drugs could have killed me. I was experimenting with life" All 3 examples have 2 things in common. 1. They could kill you 2. They are illegal. See the pattern emerging? Things are considered illegal for a reason. Not as many think to control everything we do and say but to protect us and others from harm. Why should the state protect me from harming myself? I am a sentient person, capable of taking decisions about my own well-being. If I want to take drugs that could cause harm to me why shouldn't I be allowed to take that choice?

You don't smoke mephedrone, you snort it.

Under a system of prohibition those who import and produce drugs have no real incentive to provide any information on their product, there is no system for those who consume drugs to ensure that they recieve a safe product and there is no way of enforcing any regulation on these products. The 'market', such as it is for illegal drugs, is completely skewed. For example, Ecstacy was, for a period, extremely pure MDMA - a relatively safe substance. If MDMA was legal people could take tests to ensure that they were buying good quality, they could take a safe ammount, they could take tests to check if they were allergic to any of the components of the drug, they could follow guidelines on how much water to drink etc. As things are, a stream of headlines about Ecstacy hit the papers and the drug is now classified in the highest possible category, something which bears no relation to it's harm. It is also far less pure than previously due to police pressure. Making drugs illegal simply makes them more expensive (causing crime) and less reliable (causing health issues). I'd also question that "the dodgy foreign CHEAP fags are laced with all manner of deadly substances" - how many people have ever been hospitalised or taken ill after smoking a 'foreign' cigarette laced with 'deadly substances'? I'd bet not many. The reason that we have smuggling of tobacco is because the price of cigarettes is so high due to taxation. If duty on tobacco was reduced to the levels of European countries then we'd have less tobacco smuggling. I doubt that the consumption of tobacco would rise that much either. The fact is that as a policy for containing drugs prohibition has failed. It is expensive, illiberal, reduces many countries (Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan) to rubble and results in a huge boon for organised crime. The tragic deaths of these lads could have been avoided if we didn't have contradictory drug laws that don't work.

Ross Tokely on the same team as Kevin Muscat? Watch out convict strikers!

Does anyone know why that game was played on a Saturday? Was it an international day?

Do you need tickets for the game next week?

Ah, this takes me back to the Cowie-Imrie Wing Wars.

Ross off for Eagle.

Woot woot.