This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Tory economic advisor is crack smoker
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 01 Jun 15 11.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 9.14am
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 9.36pm
Of course he should go. So its not freedom of expression and personal choice? I thought it wasn't your belief that the state should be intervening in the choices of individuals and businesses. If its outside work and isn't affecting his daily work, surely its up to him? Even if its ill advised, somewhat dangerous and addictive (not really a problem on his income). Freedom of expression and personal choice within the law of course, as you well know. You think taking crack cocaine would not affect his daily work? When taking the crack, he was in possession of a Class A drug - a criminal offence. Just shows how low society has sunk when people are saying he does not need to resign. Edited by derben (01 Jun 2015 9.59am) Conviction for possession requires that you can prove the person in question was in possession of a controlled substance beyond reasonable doubt. Oddly this has resulted in being high not being an offence of possession. The idea that someone has to resign on the say so of evidence presented by a newspaper is questionable in the extreme. Given the duration of a crack high, and the high metabolisation of cocaine, provided he isn't using it all of the time, then it could very conceivably have no impact on his work, in the same way that getting drunk on a Friday doesn't mean you'll be s***faced on the Monday. The absurdity of the moral imperative drive of society is that someone who may well have been doing their job perfectly well, and benefiting society can be ousted from that position on the basis of what other people think are acceptable forms of recreation drug use. If he was getting smashed on whiskey every night no one would give a f**k.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jun 15 11.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 9.14am
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 9.36pm
Of course he should go. So its not freedom of expression and personal choice? I thought it wasn't your belief that the state should be intervening in the choices of individuals and businesses. If its outside work and isn't affecting his daily work, surely its up to him? Even if its ill advised, somewhat dangerous and addictive (not really a problem on his income). Freedom of expression and personal choice within the law of course, as you well know. You think taking crack cocaine would not affect his daily work? When taking the crack, he was in possession of a Class A drug - a criminal offence. Just shows how low society has sunk when people are saying he does not need to resign. Edited by derben (01 Jun 2015 9.59am) Conviction for possession requires that you are either caught in possession of a proven controlled substance, admit guilt or attempt to purchase, obtain or get another person to supply or obtain, such a substance. Odd as it sounds, being high on a drug isn't actually a crime, and nor is a blood or urine test sufficient to provide sufficient basis for a conviction for possession. So legally speaking, due to the absurdity of the UK drug laws (which are absurd anyhow) he hasn't actually committed a provable offence.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 01 Jun 15 11.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 11.07am
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 9.14am
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 9.36pm
Of course he should go. So its not freedom of expression and personal choice? I thought it wasn't your belief that the state should be intervening in the choices of individuals and businesses. If its outside work and isn't affecting his daily work, surely its up to him? Even if its ill advised, somewhat dangerous and addictive (not really a problem on his income). Freedom of expression and personal choice within the law of course, as you well know. You think taking crack cocaine would not affect his daily work? When taking the crack, he was in possession of a Class A drug - a criminal offence. Just shows how low society has sunk when people are saying he does not need to resign. Edited by derben (01 Jun 2015 9.59am) Conviction for possession requires that you can prove the person in question was in possession of a controlled substance beyond reasonable doubt. Oddly this has resulted in being high not being an offence of possession. The idea that someone has to resign on the say so of evidence presented by a newspaper is questionable in the extreme. Given the duration of a crack high, and the high metabolisation of cocaine, provided he isn't using it all of the time, then it could very conceivably have no impact on his work, in the same way that getting drunk on a Friday doesn't mean you'll be s***faced on the Monday. The absurdity of the moral imperative drive of society is that someone who may well have been doing their job perfectly well, and benefiting society can be ousted from that position on the basis of what other people think are acceptable forms of recreation drug use. If he was getting smashed on whiskey every night no one would give a f**k. If someone advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the lack of judgement to take crack cocaine, then the wisdom of his advice must be suspect to say the least, of course he should go.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jun 15 12.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 11.30am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 11.07am
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 9.14am
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 9.36pm
Of course he should go. So its not freedom of expression and personal choice? I thought it wasn't your belief that the state should be intervening in the choices of individuals and businesses. If its outside work and isn't affecting his daily work, surely its up to him? Even if its ill advised, somewhat dangerous and addictive (not really a problem on his income). Freedom of expression and personal choice within the law of course, as you well know. You think taking crack cocaine would not affect his daily work? When taking the crack, he was in possession of a Class A drug - a criminal offence. Just shows how low society has sunk when people are saying he does not need to resign. Edited by derben (01 Jun 2015 9.59am) Conviction for possession requires that you can prove the person in question was in possession of a controlled substance beyond reasonable doubt. Oddly this has resulted in being high not being an offence of possession. The idea that someone has to resign on the say so of evidence presented by a newspaper is questionable in the extreme. Given the duration of a crack high, and the high metabolisation of cocaine, provided he isn't using it all of the time, then it could very conceivably have no impact on his work, in the same way that getting drunk on a Friday doesn't mean you'll be s***faced on the Monday. The absurdity of the moral imperative drive of society is that someone who may well have been doing their job perfectly well, and benefiting society can be ousted from that position on the basis of what other people think are acceptable forms of recreation drug use. If he was getting smashed on whiskey every night no one would give a f**k. If someone advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the lack of judgement to take crack cocaine, then the wisdom of his advice must be suspect to say the least, of course he should go. On the say so of the tabloid media, seems fair and just and right.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 01 Jun 15 12.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 12.43pm
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 11.30am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 11.07am
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 9.14am
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 9.36pm
Of course he should go. So its not freedom of expression and personal choice? I thought it wasn't your belief that the state should be intervening in the choices of individuals and businesses. If its outside work and isn't affecting his daily work, surely its up to him? Even if its ill advised, somewhat dangerous and addictive (not really a problem on his income). Freedom of expression and personal choice within the law of course, as you well know. You think taking crack cocaine would not affect his daily work? When taking the crack, he was in possession of a Class A drug - a criminal offence. Just shows how low society has sunk when people are saying he does not need to resign. Edited by derben (01 Jun 2015 9.59am) Conviction for possession requires that you can prove the person in question was in possession of a controlled substance beyond reasonable doubt. Oddly this has resulted in being high not being an offence of possession. The idea that someone has to resign on the say so of evidence presented by a newspaper is questionable in the extreme. Given the duration of a crack high, and the high metabolisation of cocaine, provided he isn't using it all of the time, then it could very conceivably have no impact on his work, in the same way that getting drunk on a Friday doesn't mean you'll be s***faced on the Monday. The absurdity of the moral imperative drive of society is that someone who may well have been doing their job perfectly well, and benefiting society can be ousted from that position on the basis of what other people think are acceptable forms of recreation drug use. If he was getting smashed on whiskey every night no one would give a f**k. If someone advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the lack of judgement to take crack cocaine, then the wisdom of his advice must be suspect to say the least, of course he should go. On the say so of the tabloid media, seems fair and just and right. No, after it being looked into, apparently there is film. Of course, if he has done it, he should simply resign of his own accord.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 johnfirewall 01 Jun 15 12.59pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 01 Jun 2015 9.19am
Quote johnfirewall at 31 May 2015 9.19pm
Got a mate who sells it to doctors and lawyers. I've known a few professionals on it. Less dangerous than booze according to David Nutt and I'm sure you agree with him.
We all know that. However I'm pretty sure that Nick had previously suggested it was government policy on drugs which was flawed, rather than the findings/views of this particular scientist.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Eagle_SA Just outside Cape Town 01 Jun 15 1.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I guess it's safer to mess about with crack than it is to play with oranges and carrier bags.
And I see signs of half remembered days, I hear bells that chime in strange familiar ways |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jun 15 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 12.53pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 12.43pm
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 11.30am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 11.07am
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 9.14am
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 9.36pm
Of course he should go. So its not freedom of expression and personal choice? I thought it wasn't your belief that the state should be intervening in the choices of individuals and businesses. If its outside work and isn't affecting his daily work, surely its up to him? Even if its ill advised, somewhat dangerous and addictive (not really a problem on his income). Freedom of expression and personal choice within the law of course, as you well know. You think taking crack cocaine would not affect his daily work? When taking the crack, he was in possession of a Class A drug - a criminal offence. Just shows how low society has sunk when people are saying he does not need to resign. Edited by derben (01 Jun 2015 9.59am) Conviction for possession requires that you can prove the person in question was in possession of a controlled substance beyond reasonable doubt. Oddly this has resulted in being high not being an offence of possession. The idea that someone has to resign on the say so of evidence presented by a newspaper is questionable in the extreme. Given the duration of a crack high, and the high metabolisation of cocaine, provided he isn't using it all of the time, then it could very conceivably have no impact on his work, in the same way that getting drunk on a Friday doesn't mean you'll be s***faced on the Monday. The absurdity of the moral imperative drive of society is that someone who may well have been doing their job perfectly well, and benefiting society can be ousted from that position on the basis of what other people think are acceptable forms of recreation drug use. If he was getting smashed on whiskey every night no one would give a f**k. If someone advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the lack of judgement to take crack cocaine, then the wisdom of his advice must be suspect to say the least, of course he should go. On the say so of the tabloid media, seems fair and just and right. No, after it being looked into, apparently there is film. Of course, if he has done it, he should simply resign of his own accord. Or join the Liberal Democrats, they in need of someone who knows how to get a party back on track. If it was me, I'd claim it was produced from dimethocaine - which isn't illegal in the UK. Crack is simply cocaine separated from the hydrochloric salt base (to lower its vapourisation point). Dimethocaine can be purchased legally in the UK, and is indistinguishable from cocaine without chemical analysis (its less potent, but has been widely or used to adulterate cocaine in the UK).
Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Jun 2015 1.09pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jun 15 1.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 12.53pm
No, after it being looked into, apparently there is film. Of course, if he has done it, he should simply resign of his own accord. No love for those who smoke the crack or smoke the cock then?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 01 Jun 15 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 1.10pm
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 12.53pm
No, after it being looked into, apparently there is film. Of course, if he has done it, he should simply resign of his own accord. No love for those who smoke the crack or smoke the cock then?
All indicative of the general malaise of contemporary society don't you know.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jun 15 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And only last for about 10 minutes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 01 Jun 15 5.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jun 2015 4.16pm
And only last for about 10 minutes.
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.