Oz647

HT - ICT 1-0 Airdrie FT - ICT 2-1 Airdrie ICT 1st scorer - Foran Airdrie 1st scorer - O'carrol Attendance - 2501

Essentially I agree with Alex on this in regards to food but you have to remember that cows, sheep pigs etc are bred for food purposes and are slaughtered humanely. Whales dolphins etc are not and therefore run the risk of becoming extinct. Also they are not killed humanely in any shape or form. I can live with the islanders killing for food, oil and warmth if there is no reasonable alternative but the japanese methods, amount and reasoning of killing is out of order Edited because I use big words in the wrong places.

HT:0-0 FT:1-2 1st Scorer ICT:Rooney 1st Scorer Opp:Barrowman Crowd 6001

If you made water illegal it would pass control to the criminals purely by fact that it would be illegal to handle it. Therefore you would be a criminal. The reason they are illegal is because they are dangerous, just as driving over the speed limit is, just as punching someone in the face is, just as running around with a loaded gun is. The law is there to protect you and those around you. We don't all agree with the law and most break one or more quite often, speeding etc. But they are what they are laws. They are there for a reason, without them we would have anarchy.

"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" Which is the same thing but from another person's point of view. In other words if I can't use them I can't hurt you, if you can't use them you can't hurt me. The state does have a duty of care to protect all it's people from being hurt by others or themselves. "Another point is that drugs aren't that dangerous" Oh that's ok then we'll just legalise everything and all have a party, of course drugs are dangerous. Wether it be tobacco, alcohol or crack. Drugs are dangerous especially when used by idiots on a night out with no prior knowledge of the contents or origin of the drug.

I did state in my post that there are exeptions when it comes to drink. OK, if I was to try and see it from your side I would possibly accept that SOME drugs could be regulated and legislation relaxed accordingly just as with fags and booze. However I still think it would be impossible to completely control drug use with a view to keeping it safe. With alcohol for example there is an age limit, rules controlling sale to people who have already drank to excess and probably a few other regs I don't know about. You could argue that this could be the same for harder drugs but I think it would be too difficult to enforce. The one other thing that springs to mind is, everybody keeps going on about how many deaths are caused by smoking and drinking and the millions spent dealing with the health problems so why oh why make something that can only add to this legal?

"Oz, why not ban alcohol then? Nicotine is in the process of being banned but why not ban drink?" Hello mate, I think common sense says there has to be a cut off point. By this I mean we could go on why not ban horse riding or driving or swimming? Hey, we could die doing any of these things. The powers that be have banned alcohol to a degree with an age limit deeming that anyone over the age of 18 SHOULD be sensible enough to drink in moderation. Unfortunately this isn't always the case. As I've also mentioned before it is very unusual for someone to die on the spot from having one drink but it is quite possible to die very rapidly from taking drugs. Yes there are long term implications from drinking, smoking etc and lots of people die from them but they are just that, long term ilnesses that can hopefully be treated and not something you could die from before anybody gets to you. Obviously there are exeptions with drink but hey isn't there always. It has been mentioned somewhere before about if it was legal there could be labels and info on the products etc. How long would this take to enforce and who would pay for it? On the side of every fag packet it says smoking kills. Does this stop people smoking? Not very often. Now this is only something that may kill you eventually. Would Heroin/cocaine etc have a lable stating that if you take it you could die very shortly after? I doubt it. These companies would put what they want on lables until it could be regulated and there would still be cheaper foreign versions being bought over the internet with foreign lalels that no-one can read etc etc. Just for the record as we all seem to be parading our credentials, I have no qualifications of any sort regarding drugs or their effects on the human body/crime rates/health stats. I also have no personal experience of drugs other than on one occasion when a friend who had taken something wanted to take me on. Something he would not normally do for various reasons which we don't need to go into. All my posts are purely my opinion and are not backed up by any stats. I do however like to think of myself as quite knowledgeable and well informed. Some may disagree.

"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? I'm not going too indepth with this beacause I'm loaded with the flu and going to bed (could do with some drugs). BUT, you do have that choice, this has been one of my main points in this whole thread. It is you that makes that decision to take something and it is you that suffers if it is dodgy. But because these things are harmful they have been deemed illegal. The state has a duty of care to protect you from harming yourself or others. You state you are capable of making decisions about your own well being but then go on to say you should be allowed to take drugs that could harm you. That seems to me to be a contradiction in itself. What sentient or sensible person would knowingly take something which he knows will do him harm?

"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.

Oz I don't want any heated discussions as you have had to have with other posters here but I would like to debate with you, if you don't mind? No probs mate, I only have heated arguements with people who I feel won't see any point of view but their own. You are not one of these You state that you are anti drugs of any kind, I wonder if that is through your military training, if you have taken in the propaganda which generations of governments have handed down. Do you drink coffee or tea? Red Bull? You have already touched upon alcohol and nicotine but do you realise that these are the two recreational drugs which cause the most harm on this planet? The fish and chips point was made because it is reckoned that obesity is one of the biggest killers of Scots people through developed heart problems and other related issues. I wouldn't say it was due to my time in the military but it probably helped enforce my views. At some time during my life I have of course taken all the "drugs" you mention here. As I mentioned earlier these will all cause health problems in life and account for lots of deaths and government funding but my point was that you take these knowing you will be fine after. Yes you may suffer health problems later in life but they will not kill you on the spot. You once touched upon us all speaking Arabic if we never had the forces to protect our freedoms, one of those freedoms being the freedom to drink alcohol, your post sounds a lot like you are in favour of the government having the power to control our lives, the power to dictate which substances they feel we should and should not be allowed to use. I can asure you that couldn't be further from the truth. The big brother thing is a blot on humanity. Whilst I believe there must be control to a degree, I also believe we should be free to make our own choices in life. This is entirely my point which I obviously didn't put over correctly. Don't blame the government for people overdosing, they didn't make anyone snort this sh1te. The individual made a conscious decision to stick a substance in his/her body knowing full well that it could do him/her harm. Most people who die from drug misuse do so because they are not aware of what they are doing or because they are using substances which are either adulterated with dangerous impurities or too pure. If the government took a protectionist stance rather than a demonisation stance then they could control the purity of drugs available, they could educate people in the dangers and when people do get themselves in trouble they would not be afraid to go and seek help. Every single person who takes drugs or not as the case maybe knows the danger of drugs. If I offered you some white powder and said hey this is good stuff, would you not be slightly concerned? Wether the drug is cut correctly or mixed with whatever you still take a massive risk taking it. Your body may not be up to it for a start. You could have underlying health problems which cause a bad reaction to the drug. You make that choice. Leah Betts, the young girl who died after taking ecstasy one night, died because of the government's demonisation of the drug. If the government had taken a stance where drug education was taught in schools then she would have known that drinking 30 litres of water in a night whilst using a substance which restricts urination would kill her, she died of kidney failure due to over hydration, not ecstasy overdose as was the propaganda at the time. I agree totally about education in schools. Whilst I am sorry for her and her family, I must point out that if she hadn't taken the tablet she would probably still be alive even if 30 ltrs of water might have made her a tadd poorly. She made the decision, her choice These two unfortunate souls who died in Scunthorpe are said to have used a cocktail of mephedrone, a synthetic stimulant, alcohol, a depressant, and methedone a synthetic opioid anyone who has any knowledge of drugs at all knows that you should never mix stimulants and depressants it is a one way ticket to the morgue. If only the government stood up to it's responsibilities and taught this to the generation coming through school now. They are taught to say no. Once again sorry for them and family but according to the news they had alledgedly consumed copius amounts of alcohol. They had also taken mephedrone and methedone. They made the decision to take a cocktail of drugs and it killed them, harsh but fact. If they hadn't taken the drugs they would be alive. One of the fathers said something to the effect of because it was legal he didn't expect to die (not an exact quote but along those lines). I'm sorry but this stuff is advertised as plant feeder (I'm not saying it is just that is what it is advertised as) would you go to B&Q and buy a tub of any other plant food and snort it? If the answer to this is yes you deserve everything you get. It's easy to blame the government for not teaching them to not mix drugs but once again I come back to....They made the choice I don't know if you have noticed but more and more people these days are using drugs, for whatever reason, surely the sensible thing is to make sure that they do it safely? because they are going to do it regardless of the law. I'll give you that. But why must they take them? Portugal has decriminalised all recreational drug use and the reports from there are somewhat surprising, if you hold the same kind of viewpoint as yourself Oz, I know I wont change your mind on the subject and similarly you wont change mine but perhaps you might just become a little more understanding. There is a good article here on the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal. I will read it and report back. All this before I have even touched on the side of drugs which will perhaps strike a nerve with you, given your background. It is said that global terrorists are now investing into the drug trade, Al qaeda in Afghanistan being the obvious example. What would happen if opium was legalised? Afghan farmers would not have to sell their product to Al Qaeda to survive in their war torn land, they would become legitimate farmers selling their product to our government (although there are a few conspiracy theories which name MI6 as black bag traders anyway) who would then control the supply and quality of the product and keep our junkies safe and away from having to rob houses and mug old folks to get their fix. it is also said that the same global terrorist organisations are making in roads into the Columbian cocaine trade and a similar tactic could be employed there. I don't buy into the government's guilt trip that this is the fault of drug users, humankind has used psychoactive substances for recreation since the dawn of time, how else would we know about them now? This one could run and run so I'm going for a short option. I don't think legalisation would stop the problems you mention unless it was global legalisation and that will never happen. The only way it would stop junkies robbing would be if it were free on the NHS and that won't happen. If it does then we should campaign for free booze as well (it's my drug of choice) The governments of the world have to stand up and admit that they have lost their war on drugs and realise that to protect the people of the world they have to take another look at their tactics, by legalising all drugs and taking strict control over the quality and availability of them then they have it within their power to wipe out a large portion of organised crime's income. They had to do it to take control of the mafia in the US in the 1930s, it will not be long before modern and global prohibition forces a similar tact across the world. Taking control of the quality and quantity will not help. People will always want it cheaper and more of it. If the doctor says you've had your quota for the week you will go elsewhere for more. Also when a junkie is given the choice a certain amount for say ?20 or double that amount for the same ?20 he will always go for the cheaper option even if he knows it might be dodgy. Finally re the fake fags, this is an extract from the Manchester gov website. There are many more but this will do. "A tobacco and cigarette survey carried out by officers earlier this year highlights the dangers of counterfeit cigarettes, which have been found on sale across the city. Cigarettes were tested for cadmium, arsenic and lead and although each of these is found in normal cigarettes the laboratory tests have shown that the counterfeit cigarettes contained excessive amounts - 5 times more cadmium, 3 times more arsenic and 7 times more lead. Cadmium is extremely toxic to humans affecting the kidneys and the lungs. Arsenic is also highly toxic and is a proven carcinogen in the lung and skin if inhaled or ingested. Exposure to lead can also be dangerous and chronic lead poisoning is associated with kidney damage and can affect the unborn child." Wow, thank f**k for that. Whilst I'm sure some will disagree with my views and some will agree, they are just that, my views. I have the right to hold them just as you have the right to yours. If you do not agree with them please by all means post but please don't start anything as I'm all typed out. There have been many posts since I have written this (took a while). If any point in my post is duplicating anybody elese or causing offence to any poster. Sorry

Very vague response from you Oz when I saw you were posting I was expecting a well structured discussion, given your normal posting style. There are many things which you can put into your body which give adverse reactions, fish and chips, whisky, nicotine, glue, solvents etc. Do you not think that if the government had a more liberal attitude to drugs ie an attitude of education and warning rather than criminalisation and demonisation that more lives would be saved? Sorry to let you down mate. :023: I will elaborate, I am very anti drugs of any sort. I believe that if you go out one night and think, hey it'll be all right to take this "E", smoke this joint, snort this mephedrone etc then you have no comeback when you are ill or worse die. We have all seen enough news reports to know that they are dangerous and possibly fatal. I think it is easy to blame the government for their policies, (I in no way support the government or any of their policies) but I'm sorry, the governement don't tell you to snort plant food and for people to say, "but it's legal" is rediculous. Rat poison is legal, would you snort it? Bleach is legal, would you drink it? No, because you know it could kill you. I think the government should do more to warn people, yes but not in a relaxed way. In regards to your point about putting other things into our body, I take your point but: If you eat fish and chips you get fat, I know I've eaten loads. You could go on to have health issues because of too many fish suppers etc. Unlikely you will die there and then unless you get greedy and shovel too much into your mouth and choke to death. If you drink alcohol you get drunk become a pain in the arse, possibly hurt yourself falling over.Worse case you may have your stomach pumped or get smacked for being a tit. You may also suffer long term health issues. If you smoke, you may choke whilst coughing. You will most certainly suffer from health problems at some stage. The above things are all bad for you but we do them because we know that we will survive at least in the short term. We know we can go out at night have a few bevvies, smoke a few fags get a chippy on the way home and we know we will wake up in the morning. Probably hungover and stinking of smoke and possibly puke or old kebab but we will be alive. If you smoke/inject/snort/sniff/drink any of the things you know you shouldn't then you are taking risks with your life. We all know that if we take a bad "E" we could die, if we snort **** gear we could die so why do it? To say it would be better if the government relaxed the laws is IMO wrong. Just because it is legal won't stop people overdosing on it. It won't stop dodgy gear getting on the streets. People will always want cheaper stuff even if it is legal. Therefore people will produce cheaper stuff, it may not be as good but hey, it's cheaper. Fags are legal but people always buy dodgy fags even when it is well documented that the dodgy foreign CHEAP fags are laced with all manner of deadly substances. People haven't got a lot of money anymore so they need the same amount of drugs but cheaper. Anyway, I believe that we all have a choice. The option to say no thanks. If you choose to forego that option then you can't complain when you come unstuck. I know people die driving their cars and we still do it but hey, we have to live. Let's do it sensibly though. I apologise for any typos, it's too long to proof read. :P

I'm sorry but IMO, if you stick anything in your body that you know could have an adverse effect on you then more fool you. We all have choices and if you make that choice then suffer the consequences. Sorry but there you have it.

Nope. There is no minimum distance required for players to stand back at throws. As long as they don't jump up when it is taken and they are on the pitch they can stand as close to the line as possible. That is correct, I seem to remember a game in the EPL last year when a player complained about the opposition standing right in front of him and the ref saying exactly what you said. I think he'd be getting a smack in the gob on the follow through if he did it to me.

Where can i find a pot calling the kettle black smiley? This do?

I think it will have the opposite effect, They may play their socks off to earn their place at hampden.

HT: 1-1 FT: 2-1 1st Scorer ICT: Rooney 1st Scorer Opp: Weatherston Crowd: 3001

Ref. Or To88er depending on how referees the game. :P

I think the thing I like about him most is that he puts his heart and soul into the game. Many footballers today play when they want to but half the time just go through the motions. Becks puts 100% into 90mins. He may be getting older and slower but he still gets about the pitch and if you want a ball playing up to you, there isn't anybody better at delivering it. Then there's always the free kicks as well, whenever you get a free kick in the other half you know there is a good chance he will score from it or at least make the keeper work. I'd have him in my team any day. I hope he stays fit for the world cup, he could be the difference. PS: Just want to say thankyou to Pullmyfinger for the moving PM he sent me apologising to all posters for his behaviour and stating that he would love to be English and support them in the world cup. :)

I know it's nothing to do with ICT and some won't give a f**k but, What did you all think of the game and the reception Becks got from the UTD fans? I thought Utd were a different class last night and made Milan look very ordinary. I also thought Ronaldinho was a lazy ******* who thought he was too good to have to get back and help out in defence. Becks looked a bit chocked by the reception he got, fully deserved IMO. I know Brand Beckham can be a bit in your face but I've always liked him as a player. I wanted the thunderbolt that he let loose to go in but hey, can't have everything. Nice touch picking up the scarf as well. I don't like praisng Utd but they are unstoppable at the moment. Your thoughts?

I was gonna say 3001 but everybody else was going lower so I changed it.Honest. Can I have some more points?

Whislt I believe that the club could have handled it better, I find it hard to believe that if a credit company had not got their payment for 5 months, they would not have contacted the OP. I missed one payment on a loan once (through no fault of my own) and I had the dogs of hell let loose on my arse. Also I'm sure that if the OP had made some sort of gesture towards paying the money owed it could have been sorted amicably without all this anomosity. Whilst the OP is bound to feel hard done by at the time, I'm sure in the cold light of day he will realise that it is actually partly his own fault that this situation has arisen. Check your statements every month and it won't happen, if it does contact the relevent people to sort it. Job done.

HT: 1-0 FT: 1-1 1st Scorer ICT: Foran 1st Scorer Opp: Holmes Crowd: 2501

In relation to the original topic I read this yesterday and thought it was interesting: Nobody would wish to belittle the ghastly fate that befell James Bulger. Letting his killers attempt to redeem themselves in peace does not do that. But we should be mindful of the fact that indignation is relatively easy to satisfy, and demands no sacrifice, no exposure to horrid experience, no damage to the soul. To continue feeding indignation against a 10-year-old boy who glimpsed Hell, and who knew it, is at best unworthy, and at worst is itself a manifestation of wickedness. " I'd apply the issue of 'right to know' to James' mother as well as the public in general. I do not think that she has a special right to insight into the lives of her son's killers - their time was served, they are not her property as they are not the media's. I think much of the pitchfork craziness around this story is very easily explained - people WANT Jon Venables to have committed some heinous crime. They want him vilified, they want evidence that he is 'bad' or 'evil' or 'rotten inside', that there is something inherently criminal and wicked within him. Because if he is evil, we don't have to look too long or hard at the failures that turned him into a killer. We don't have to accept blame. We don't have to try to understand the warped psychology of a damaged little boy or examine how differently things might have turned out. If Jon Venables is evil, it all becomes very simple and easy - we are absolved of the blame. My point still stands as a country we are failing if we cannot find the reasons why people re-offend. I don't really agree with the article posted but I do agree with your final note. I believe we are failing even more by giving them the chance to re-offend Re the death penalty, why not have it as a choice for the offender ie: You are found guilty and sentenced to life without the chance of parole or you may opt for the death penalty. Some people may find life in jail too much to bare and opt to die by lethal injection. Obviously it would have to be after all the appeals and such like. If you are innocent you will not opt for this and keep fighting too clear your name thereby keeping the chance of innocent people losing their lives to a minimum. I'm sure there will be a lot of people who disagree with my thoughts on this but it's an option. I think if I had killed someone and faced the rest of my life in jail with no chnace of parole , I'd consider it. But hey, that's just my opinion for what it's worth.

I honestly believe that it all depends on the circumstances for example, A man kills a burglar in his own house whilst protecting his family/property. After serving part of his sentence he is released on licence and moves next door. Not a problem for me On the other hand a burglar kills a man whilst robbing his house. Serves some of his sentence, released on licence, moves next door. I'm not happy about it. Both guilty of murder but due to the circumstances I would accept one but not the other. This is why I could never accept that the two killers should be free. The vile and vicious way in which they killed Jamie Bulger IMO shows that they are either evil through and through or mentally unstable. Either way they are more than likely to re-offend. Yes, he may have driven a car without a licence or stole a bag of sweets but somehow I doubt it's that simple.