The Mail Bag
Baxter's in the soup
Comments (160)
According to this morning's Daily Post...
"An Everton squad member was arrested on suspicion of possessing drugs and counterfeit money. Rising star Jose Baxter, 17, from Bootle, and two other men were arrested yesterday in Kirkby. A spokesman for Merseyside Police said: 'We can confirm that three men were arrested in Kirkby on possession of cannabis with intent to supply and on suspicion of possession of counterfeit money'. The men, 17, 29 and 34 are currently in police custody. A spokesman for Everton Football Club said they had no comment at this time. The centre forward is the youngest player, at the age of 16 years and 191 days, ever to feature in an Everton line-up. He came on as a substitute for Everton in their clash against Blackburn Rovers on August 16, 2008. He has now become a regular member of the first- team squad"
Maybe this is the place to start a really aggressive, shouty campaign that, despite all or any evidence, just repeats' Jose is innocent!!!' until the authorities get fed up and release him. It's worked before.
(a bit of vocal support from Liz McThingy and Freddie Starr might also help!)
EJ Ruane, Posted 06/10/2009 at 08:11:26
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
What a fool..
I read on The Guardian website that Jose Baxter has been released on Police bail after being arrested in possession, allegedly, of cannabis and counterfeit money. Two other men were involved also.
Jose Baxter..The new Billy Kenny? What a shame that someone with so much promise has fucked up and could now have thrown everything away.
Is this one of those common knowledge things around Liverpool that Jose was up to this or is this a suprise for everyone?
What a COCK!
On the Telegraph website...
While I sincerely hope he doesn't turn out to be another Billy Kenny, I couldn't help but smile at his mother's name.
What was the lad thinking? Is this just a case of stupidity on the young lads behalf or another example of another spoilt "kid" getting too much money way too soon when they're only starting out in the game and believing their own hype??
Jose Baxter — arrested on suspicion of posessing cannabis with intent to supply... and counterfeit money....
Is he stuipd? Is he a few slices short of a loaf?
Even if he has nothing to do with the cannabis or money (he was with two others when stopped by police) — he is still unbelievably idiotic for having those people in his car and allowing them to have the drugs and cash on them. He is guilty by association and I hope that he is made an example of. I don't care how 'promising' he is as a football talent... If guilty, I hope Everton deal with him in the same way they did with Billy Kenny.
How dare he risk the reputation of the club. He is an ambassador for Everton FC and he is brought our name into disrepute — something that Moyes has worked hard to prevent. I feel let down today because this sort of behaviour is not welcome at Everton.
Baxter was arrested on suspicion of possessing cannabis and fake money!! Are Everton that hard up, that we are now having to print our own money to pay players!!!
Teenager acts like teenager... shocker!
Hope this is bollocks. Why would he be involved in shit like this?
Hopefully, if guilty, it's a caution from the bizzies and a clip round the ear from Moyes. This lad is supposed to have massive potential and it would be a shame to see it blossoming elsewhere!
Could be worse, he could have been shagging granny brasses.
It's amazing to me that some people on here will slag off the likes of Osman and Hibbert but defend Jose Baxter.
Osman and Hibbert are two of the hardest working players at the club. Giving their all every single week. And all they get is shit.
Baxter on the other hand has made two or three sparce appearances and done nothing for Everton except drag our reputation through the mud. And he gets support from some people.
If he’s guilty, SACK HIM.
Osman and Hibbert are two of the hardest working players at the club. Giving their all every single week. And all they get is shit.
Baxter on the other hand has made two or three sparce appearances and done nothing for Everton except drag our reputation through the mud. And he gets support from some people.
If he’s guilty, SACK HIM.
"Hopefully, if guilty, it’s a caution from the bizzie’s and a clip round the ear from Moyes" — Mark, It’s that sort of attitude that makes footballer’s think they are above the law, and can get away with anything. If he is found guilty of intent to supply, then he is a drug dealer, and no matter how much promise the lad has, we should fuck him off.
’He is guilty by association and I hope that he is made an example of. I don’t care how ’promising’ he is as a football talent... If guilty, I hope Everton deal with him in the same way they did with Billy Kenny. ’
--------------------------
Guilty by association? Is that a new one on the statute books?
Talk about convicting someone on a media report..catch a grip.
Even if he’s smoked a bit..so what. He’s a child..just because he’s a footballer doesn’t mean he’s expected to live in a bubble.
People make mistakes. That’s life...get to fuck over it.
--------------------------
Guilty by association? Is that a new one on the statute books?
Talk about convicting someone on a media report..catch a grip.
Even if he’s smoked a bit..so what. He’s a child..just because he’s a footballer doesn’t mean he’s expected to live in a bubble.
People make mistakes. That’s life...get to fuck over it.
’If he is found guilty of intent to supply, then he is a drug dealer, and no matter how much promise the lad has, we should fuck him off.’
-------------------------
Don’t talk Bollocks...Passing a joint constitutes intent to supply...
People should really engage their brains before debating something they know nothing about.
-------------------------
Don’t talk Bollocks...Passing a joint constitutes intent to supply...
People should really engage their brains before debating something they know nothing about.
’Teenager acts like teenager...shocker!’. Ciaran, I don't recall being involved in anything like this when I was one! Possession of cannabis with intent to supply and possession of counterfeit money is a step up from scratching penises on bus shelters.
It is highly unlikely that use is the problem here (stays in the system for 42 days)
It is not uncommon for footballers to have kept dubious company... just ask Stevie G.
More than likely the two other men would not admit to it being theirs so all three have been nicked. I’ve done some stupid things in my youth so I can see the sense in giving him the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and all that...
It is not uncommon for footballers to have kept dubious company... just ask Stevie G.
More than likely the two other men would not admit to it being theirs so all three have been nicked. I’ve done some stupid things in my youth so I can see the sense in giving him the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and all that...
Dick,
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. How can you possibly compared giving players stick because their football is crap (an undeniable fact in Osman’s case)...and asking for due process and perhaps a little rational thinking on the extra curricular activities of a 17 year old...
An abslutely pathetic comparison.
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. How can you possibly compared giving players stick because their football is crap (an undeniable fact in Osman’s case)...and asking for due process and perhaps a little rational thinking on the extra curricular activities of a 17 year old...
An abslutely pathetic comparison.
’I dont recall being involved in anything like this when I was one!’
---------------------
Well done that man.
You are a paragon of virtue.
P.S scratching a Penis on a bus shelter is criminal damage, and could incur a prison sentence.
---------------------
Well done that man.
You are a paragon of virtue.
P.S scratching a Penis on a bus shelter is criminal damage, and could incur a prison sentence.
Ciaran, if you read what I said, I said "IF he is found guilty of intent to supply." Also, somehow I don’t think the charge would be ’with intent to supply’ If it was just "passing a joint."
I think you will find, that when it is over a certain amount, then it is classed as intent to supply, as in sell.
I think you will find, that when it is over a certain amount, then it is classed as intent to supply, as in sell.
If he gets Stevie G la’s brief, he will be able to prove that he is the innocent victim in all this!
Brian,
Take my word for it.
Passing a joint constitutes actual supply and intent to supply.
Take my word for it.
Passing a joint constitutes actual supply and intent to supply.
Scratching your penis on a bus shelter is also bloody painful. I mean I would imagine it is.
Villa player arrested in training:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8292572.stm
What is it with the youth of today? I blame the Labour Government.
It’s also Gordon Browns fault that Osman and Hibbert are (playing) crap.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8292572.stm
What is it with the youth of today? I blame the Labour Government.
It’s also Gordon Browns fault that Osman and Hibbert are (playing) crap.
Ciarán McGlone — firstly I despise all drugs — they are illegal for a reason and that, roughly, is because they are the scurge of our society — gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs.
In Baxter's case — it's a little disappointing that a lad from bootle ends up in Kirkby with two other lads and just happens to be in position of enough cannabis to constitute ’intent to supply’ and counterfeit money — which any moron would realise is something to stay away from given the press it has received lately in Liverpool (the tunnels getting hit with £86k worth of fake money)...
So yeah — for two reaons Baxter should be made an example of... one: he doesn’t need to be involved with drugs or anyone associated with drugs, and two: drugs ruin the very fabric of society and are ILLEGAL — so don't you dare tell me to not post on something that I know nothing about when clearly you think it's all okay because he’s young and impressionable.
I have seen thousands (and I mean thousands) of lives on the brink of disaster because of drugs and the blame can be distributed towards those who cannot make an honest living. Just because it's cannabis really doesn’t make it okay. An illegal substance is an illegal substance. A dealer is the scum of the earth and sadly we have far too many of them in the UK.
In Baxter's case — it's a little disappointing that a lad from bootle ends up in Kirkby with two other lads and just happens to be in position of enough cannabis to constitute ’intent to supply’ and counterfeit money — which any moron would realise is something to stay away from given the press it has received lately in Liverpool (the tunnels getting hit with £86k worth of fake money)...
So yeah — for two reaons Baxter should be made an example of... one: he doesn’t need to be involved with drugs or anyone associated with drugs, and two: drugs ruin the very fabric of society and are ILLEGAL — so don't you dare tell me to not post on something that I know nothing about when clearly you think it's all okay because he’s young and impressionable.
I have seen thousands (and I mean thousands) of lives on the brink of disaster because of drugs and the blame can be distributed towards those who cannot make an honest living. Just because it's cannabis really doesn’t make it okay. An illegal substance is an illegal substance. A dealer is the scum of the earth and sadly we have far too many of them in the UK.
Passing a joint is classed as supply but to my knowledge, a custodial sentence has never been issued in Merseyside for such and offence.
Jamie,
I don’t want to get into a debate on the science on cannabis - because frankly you’d lose, and this isn’t the place for it.
But to lump all drugs together is both naive, dangerous and part of a greater societal problem. And so is your casual and causal linkage with other crime.
If he’s guilty, then he’ll no doubt get what he deserves as dictated by the courts - thankfully, and hopefully that will not be your preferred action of ’making an example of him’..
He is a 17 year old child for god’s sake..To say you want his career ruined for a possible indiscretion at that age is disgraceful, callous and the type of vindictive thinking that creates these problems in the first place. Have a bit of brains.
I don’t want to get into a debate on the science on cannabis - because frankly you’d lose, and this isn’t the place for it.
But to lump all drugs together is both naive, dangerous and part of a greater societal problem. And so is your casual and causal linkage with other crime.
If he’s guilty, then he’ll no doubt get what he deserves as dictated by the courts - thankfully, and hopefully that will not be your preferred action of ’making an example of him’..
He is a 17 year old child for god’s sake..To say you want his career ruined for a possible indiscretion at that age is disgraceful, callous and the type of vindictive thinking that creates these problems in the first place. Have a bit of brains.
The whole intent to supply thing doesnt half make it difficult to calculate what exactly he has been arrested for.
Ciaran: passing a J is not intent to supply, however it is considered supplying if you are caught in the action of passing a J. If you are caught with a single J then that can not be ’intent’ to supply as it does not consititute enough actual cannabis.
To be done for intent, one must be holding over 3.5 grams of cannabis, (i’m unsure how much is required for resin). But 3.5 grams is fuck all, its 20-30quids worth.
Besides, n matter what he has done...what should be the repercussions? Prison, sacking and banning from football? Dont be ridiculous. In terms of greter good for society et al surely ruining his career and forcing him into another form of living full time is not the greatest plan.
Basically, surely its time Cannabis was made legal, or at the minimum people were immune from presecution for simply possesing a personal stash.
Hopefully a slap on the wrist and he’ll soon be making headlines on the back pages.
Ciaran: passing a J is not intent to supply, however it is considered supplying if you are caught in the action of passing a J. If you are caught with a single J then that can not be ’intent’ to supply as it does not consititute enough actual cannabis.
To be done for intent, one must be holding over 3.5 grams of cannabis, (i’m unsure how much is required for resin). But 3.5 grams is fuck all, its 20-30quids worth.
Besides, n matter what he has done...what should be the repercussions? Prison, sacking and banning from football? Dont be ridiculous. In terms of greter good for society et al surely ruining his career and forcing him into another form of living full time is not the greatest plan.
Basically, surely its time Cannabis was made legal, or at the minimum people were immune from presecution for simply possesing a personal stash.
Hopefully a slap on the wrist and he’ll soon be making headlines on the back pages.
I was gob-smacked when I read this..looks like he might be playing his football in the prison yard rather than at the Old Lady. What a prat but there may be more to the story that we know - not making excuses for him - but he seems very young to be involved with a man of 29 and one in his thirties. Perhaps some pressure has been brought to bear on him but, then again, perhaps he just thouht he would make some fast money.
As my son said - he had better use Stevie G’s lawyer !!!
As my son said - he had better use Stevie G’s lawyer !!!
Well said Ciarán & Fran.
Some people (Jamie Rowland ) need to get a grip, get their facts right, and drop the snooty attitude.
Some people (Jamie Rowland ) need to get a grip, get their facts right, and drop the snooty attitude.
Fran,
The amount is irrelevant.
If you admit to passing a joint you are admitting to supply and that includes intent.
That is a fact.
The amount is irrelevant.
If you admit to passing a joint you are admitting to supply and that includes intent.
That is a fact.
Jamie, firstly I despise all drugs — they are illegal for a reason and that, roughly, is because they are the scurge of our society — gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs.
....................................................
Even coffee?
98% of peados are regular bread eaters.
....................................................
Even coffee?
98% of peados are regular bread eaters.
I think, depending on the details and circumstances, a severe punishment falling short of kicking him would suffice. Being so young, he deserves a second chance but he has to be shown how stupid he’s been... allegedly.
"98% of peados are regular bread eaters"
Do they abuse kids just to get their next fix of Hovis?
"98% of peados are regular bread eaters"
Do they abuse kids just to get their next fix of Hovis?
I wouldn't like to be a defendant in a case with some of the above as jurors. Not a single one of you has any knowledge or proof as to what has gone on with Baxter yet you have already hung drawn and quartered him.
For all anyone knows, Baxter may be completely innocent. I mean when was the last time any of you do-gooders above searched your mates when they got in your car??
Lay off until you get the facts; then, if the lad has been a tit, stick the boot in then. Guilty until proven otherwise is not the law of this land the last time I looked.
For all anyone knows, Baxter may be completely innocent. I mean when was the last time any of you do-gooders above searched your mates when they got in your car??
Lay off until you get the facts; then, if the lad has been a tit, stick the boot in then. Guilty until proven otherwise is not the law of this land the last time I looked.
I remember being exposed to this holier than thou, sanctimonious, self-rightousness back on a thread about Mark Ward.
This is disappointing and, in the same way I don’t expect people to instantly jump to the lad’s defence (a la Steve "Golden Boy" Gerrard), I also don’t expect Jose to be tried and convicted by a kangaroo court of pious Toffeewebbers based on an article that says what exactly? No details at all and yet away we go jumping to all sorts of conclusions.
I don’t expect everybody to have the same attitudes towards drugs or teenage behaviour, but get the fuck down from your high horse and at least wait and see what the full story is. Worst case scenario is that Baxter is the Don and is the main weed supplier in Kirkby, whilst operating a sideline in moody bank notes. More probable is that the lad needs to choose his mates better and was in a car that happened to have counterfeit notes (probably given as change) and, for arguments sake, an ounce or two of the herb. Cops will ask whose it is and if nobody owns up then you are all charged with possession, intent to supply etc.
Maybe Jose is the next Tony Montana, maybe he’s a fairly typical teenager who has got himself in over his head or maybe it’s somewhere in between. I for one will wait and see. I’m not suggesting that he be let off for any transgressions, but neither do I think he should be dealt with more harshly than any other person.
Time will tell I guess, following an investigation and possibly a court appearance which it would appear many on here wouldn’t even bother with. What’s that? Everton player? Drugs? Kill him... kill them all! I don’t have ultimate faith in the British legal system, but I have more faith in it than some of the posters above.
This is disappointing and, in the same way I don’t expect people to instantly jump to the lad’s defence (a la Steve "Golden Boy" Gerrard), I also don’t expect Jose to be tried and convicted by a kangaroo court of pious Toffeewebbers based on an article that says what exactly? No details at all and yet away we go jumping to all sorts of conclusions.
I don’t expect everybody to have the same attitudes towards drugs or teenage behaviour, but get the fuck down from your high horse and at least wait and see what the full story is. Worst case scenario is that Baxter is the Don and is the main weed supplier in Kirkby, whilst operating a sideline in moody bank notes. More probable is that the lad needs to choose his mates better and was in a car that happened to have counterfeit notes (probably given as change) and, for arguments sake, an ounce or two of the herb. Cops will ask whose it is and if nobody owns up then you are all charged with possession, intent to supply etc.
Maybe Jose is the next Tony Montana, maybe he’s a fairly typical teenager who has got himself in over his head or maybe it’s somewhere in between. I for one will wait and see. I’m not suggesting that he be let off for any transgressions, but neither do I think he should be dealt with more harshly than any other person.
Time will tell I guess, following an investigation and possibly a court appearance which it would appear many on here wouldn’t even bother with. What’s that? Everton player? Drugs? Kill him... kill them all! I don’t have ultimate faith in the British legal system, but I have more faith in it than some of the posters above.
As far as I am aware, no-one has been convicted of anything with regard to this matter. I have scant knowledge of narcotics and how possession of such is viewed by the powers that be... I do know that a very dim view is taken regarding the possession of dud fivers. I should imagine that an individual would have very much more to be concerned about with this aspect of any charge sheet.
Alan,
You are quite right...the messing with the ’queens coupon’ will likely be the biggie..
You are quite right...the messing with the ’queens coupon’ will likely be the biggie..
Neil "More probable is that the lad needs to choose his mates better." Ahh, I get it Neil, it’s okay for you to pass judgemrnt on him, but anybody passing judgement on him should he be guilty, is out of order?
The lad may have been caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. He may be simply guilty of keeping bad company so we shall wait and see and hold off on the over zealous judgements for now.
That said, I pretty much agree with Jamie Rowland’s assessment of the drug culture in this country and particularily Merseyside. Taking a laid back attitude towards any form of narcotics leads ultimately to the social problems we are enduring today, from juvenile crime to urban decay.
That's for another day though. Let's see what happens with the lad first. If he is in any way implicated with this then Moyes being Moyes will never allow him near the club car park never mind the dressing room.
That said, I pretty much agree with Jamie Rowland’s assessment of the drug culture in this country and particularily Merseyside. Taking a laid back attitude towards any form of narcotics leads ultimately to the social problems we are enduring today, from juvenile crime to urban decay.
That's for another day though. Let's see what happens with the lad first. If he is in any way implicated with this then Moyes being Moyes will never allow him near the club car park never mind the dressing room.
So Chris,
How many lashings for underage drinking??
The most destructive drug in our society of course...
Over to you.....
How many lashings for underage drinking??
The most destructive drug in our society of course...
Over to you.....
Maybe a few of us are old fashioned, but if the lad is found guilty of supplying any drug and I don't give a damn whether its Class A, B, C (because I suspect all pushers start at the bottom of the rung), then he deserves to be shipped out of Everton even if he doesn’t get a custodial sentence.
I really thought the lad had a bit of nouse about him when he came onto the football scene but clearly he hasn’t and to potentially throw away a blossoming and financially rewarding career is shocking.
What must his parents think, I’m sure they must be devastated.
Ciaran - "teenagers will be teenagers" . I’m not sure where you from but I’m glad I don't live there. I spent 4-5 years help run a "Conference" Level Youth Set Up and only 2 out of at least a 100 of the lads which passed through got involved with drugs and that fact was not by arrests but by colleagues/parents identifying it and trying to help.
I really thought the lad had a bit of nouse about him when he came onto the football scene but clearly he hasn’t and to potentially throw away a blossoming and financially rewarding career is shocking.
What must his parents think, I’m sure they must be devastated.
Ciaran - "teenagers will be teenagers" . I’m not sure where you from but I’m glad I don't live there. I spent 4-5 years help run a "Conference" Level Youth Set Up and only 2 out of at least a 100 of the lads which passed through got involved with drugs and that fact was not by arrests but by colleagues/parents identifying it and trying to help.
Ciaran, you come across as that kid in school that loves stirring the shit but never has anything of value to add to a conversation.
Underage drinking can be directly linked to early stage use of class C drugs. It doesnt take a clever man or even you to recognise that one. In my humble opinion this country is light years behind our european neighbours when it comes to controlling alcohol, drugs and a general standard of healthy living. You only have to take a look at any holiday resort frequented by our bucket and spade brigades to see this.
In answer to your question though, I would heavily fine the parents of any underage kid caught with booze. The buck stops at home and maybe some parents may actually give a toss when their kids are out on the streets at 11pm on weeknight.
Too long an answer? Well you did ask fella.
Underage drinking can be directly linked to early stage use of class C drugs. It doesnt take a clever man or even you to recognise that one. In my humble opinion this country is light years behind our european neighbours when it comes to controlling alcohol, drugs and a general standard of healthy living. You only have to take a look at any holiday resort frequented by our bucket and spade brigades to see this.
In answer to your question though, I would heavily fine the parents of any underage kid caught with booze. The buck stops at home and maybe some parents may actually give a toss when their kids are out on the streets at 11pm on weeknight.
Too long an answer? Well you did ask fella.
"Gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs." as can sex traficking, gangland murders, fake DVDs, Chinese cockle pickers etc. So what to do, take away the illegal element to drugs and the crime goes with it a la prohibition in pre-war USA.
Also, what if the weed he had was home grown? That has nothing to do with gun crime and co...
Also, what if the weed he had was home grown? That has nothing to do with gun crime and co...
Fran,
Are seriously advocating the idea of legalising the likes of heroin, crack, ecstasy, coke etc?
This is the kind of world you want to pass on to the next generation? I’m sure they’ll thank you very much...clown.
Are seriously advocating the idea of legalising the likes of heroin, crack, ecstasy, coke etc?
This is the kind of world you want to pass on to the next generation? I’m sure they’ll thank you very much...clown.
"I don’t have ultimate faith in the British legal system, but I have more faith in it than some of the posters above."
I for one have NO faith in the English and Welsh legal system.
Just hope it's all blown out of proportion as he is such a talent and is the future of this football club.
I for one have NO faith in the English and Welsh legal system.
Just hope it's all blown out of proportion as he is such a talent and is the future of this football club.
First up, he is innocent until proven guilty.
We know nothing about the story: Why he was there? Who he was with? Did he have the drugs/money? Or was it on the other guys?.
Before we call for him to be sacked, we should hold off until we know what actually happened. We didn't sack Rooney for the prossies, Big Dunc for going to jail, Gerrard didn't get sacked for fighting. Other players didn't get sacked for drink-driving etc.
We know nothing about the story: Why he was there? Who he was with? Did he have the drugs/money? Or was it on the other guys?.
Before we call for him to be sacked, we should hold off until we know what actually happened. We didn't sack Rooney for the prossies, Big Dunc for going to jail, Gerrard didn't get sacked for fighting. Other players didn't get sacked for drink-driving etc.
Crack... this is a drug that has developed becasue cocaine is illegal. If cocaine was legal, crack would not have been created.
Heroin... I know people who use heroin, I know why they use it. Fact is, if it was legal, less people would use it. Not sure exactly what country it is (Sweden, Finland, Switzerland or somewhere) have had a 90% reduction of ’new users’ over the last 10 years due to legalisation via the health service. Yes, those taking it are still taking it, but at least not robbing their parents and co to fund it. Also, most over doses are a result of people taking something and not knowing what is in it, how strong it is etc. If legal, this can be controlled.
Ecstasy: kills very very few people, and they die due to drinking too much or too little water. Has no long term physiological side effects. In fact, it being illegal is casuing many problems, one being the producion of other stimulants. E is a chemical, so all you need to do is change the chemical formulations and it is not covered by the legislation, and is thus legal. Problem is, this leads to many people playing chemist without knowing of any possible side-effects. Most problems from E come from people actually swallowing pills of rat poison, this wouldn't happen if legal.
Coke; most problems with coke are that people are snorting vast quantities of unknown substances. Yes, it's addictive, but 90%+ of people who use it, use it occasionally, not every night.
Fact is, people want to use these things, making them illegal does not stop people using these things, but a by-product of being illegal is that it funds sex trafficking, slave labour. Another by-product is it is more dangerous for the consumers. Another by-product is that it criminalises young people (age 17 get done for possession... age 20 no prospects... age 25 get done for other crimes).
It's time we moved away from the ultra-consevative values. The likes of Colombia and Barzil are realising this and legislation is changing.
Heroin... I know people who use heroin, I know why they use it. Fact is, if it was legal, less people would use it. Not sure exactly what country it is (Sweden, Finland, Switzerland or somewhere) have had a 90% reduction of ’new users’ over the last 10 years due to legalisation via the health service. Yes, those taking it are still taking it, but at least not robbing their parents and co to fund it. Also, most over doses are a result of people taking something and not knowing what is in it, how strong it is etc. If legal, this can be controlled.
Ecstasy: kills very very few people, and they die due to drinking too much or too little water. Has no long term physiological side effects. In fact, it being illegal is casuing many problems, one being the producion of other stimulants. E is a chemical, so all you need to do is change the chemical formulations and it is not covered by the legislation, and is thus legal. Problem is, this leads to many people playing chemist without knowing of any possible side-effects. Most problems from E come from people actually swallowing pills of rat poison, this wouldn't happen if legal.
Coke; most problems with coke are that people are snorting vast quantities of unknown substances. Yes, it's addictive, but 90%+ of people who use it, use it occasionally, not every night.
Fact is, people want to use these things, making them illegal does not stop people using these things, but a by-product of being illegal is that it funds sex trafficking, slave labour. Another by-product is it is more dangerous for the consumers. Another by-product is that it criminalises young people (age 17 get done for possession... age 20 no prospects... age 25 get done for other crimes).
It's time we moved away from the ultra-consevative values. The likes of Colombia and Barzil are realising this and legislation is changing.
The boy hasn’t been charged with anything yet, and until he is I suggest to people on this site, to stop passing judgement. There may be a simple explanation why he was in that car.
"Jamie, I don’t want to get into a debate on the science on cannabis - because frankly you’d lose, and this isn’t the place for it.
But to lump all drugs together is both naive, dangerous and part of a greater societal problem. And so is your casual and causal linkage with other crime.
...i’ll lose will i?...do we need to put money on this...?
I’m naive? Yet you're the one suggesting this when you nothing about me or my back ground, my work or my life currently? Yet I am naive.
While I agree he is only a 17-year-old lad, I don't necessarily believe that it's a reason to forgive and forget. As I have said, I have seen literally thousands of people majorly hurt by drugs in my very own city and I have been involved in rehabiliation programs for many years. I see the devastating effect that drugs have upon our city every week and I have my own opinion on why that happens — this I am not debating here — and is a debate that I definitely WOULD NOT lose. But then again, seeing as some people on this website are ALWAYS right, perhaps I wouldn’t lose — rather be ridiculed for having an opinion on a forum?! Yet, as you have said, that's probably my naivity for thinking that a forum was to express opinions that may differ from others.
If Baxter is involved or stupid enough to be impressed with those involved in organised crime — such as drug dealing (be it Class C or not — evidence shows a progression through drug classes for substance abusers — again an argument I would not lose), then I can no longer have the opinion of ’he’s only a 17-year-old’. And that goes for anyone — not just an up-and-coming footballing talent.
The intent to deal drugs (or intent for any gain from criminal activity) is the the worst part of any crime. Drug dealers, be it class C or above, care little for the people that they deal too or the devastation they cause to the families and friends of those that take it that one step too far. Age — I’m afraid — becomes irrelevant, much like certain arguments on here.
I’m all for leniency where it is due. Let's wait and see if he’s truly innocent — and if so, then fair enough. If guilty, then this is one Evertonian who would be disappointed to see Everton not properly punish him for Gross Misconduct.
But to lump all drugs together is both naive, dangerous and part of a greater societal problem. And so is your casual and causal linkage with other crime.
...i’ll lose will i?...do we need to put money on this...?
I’m naive? Yet you're the one suggesting this when you nothing about me or my back ground, my work or my life currently? Yet I am naive.
While I agree he is only a 17-year-old lad, I don't necessarily believe that it's a reason to forgive and forget. As I have said, I have seen literally thousands of people majorly hurt by drugs in my very own city and I have been involved in rehabiliation programs for many years. I see the devastating effect that drugs have upon our city every week and I have my own opinion on why that happens — this I am not debating here — and is a debate that I definitely WOULD NOT lose. But then again, seeing as some people on this website are ALWAYS right, perhaps I wouldn’t lose — rather be ridiculed for having an opinion on a forum?! Yet, as you have said, that's probably my naivity for thinking that a forum was to express opinions that may differ from others.
If Baxter is involved or stupid enough to be impressed with those involved in organised crime — such as drug dealing (be it Class C or not — evidence shows a progression through drug classes for substance abusers — again an argument I would not lose), then I can no longer have the opinion of ’he’s only a 17-year-old’. And that goes for anyone — not just an up-and-coming footballing talent.
The intent to deal drugs (or intent for any gain from criminal activity) is the the worst part of any crime. Drug dealers, be it class C or above, care little for the people that they deal too or the devastation they cause to the families and friends of those that take it that one step too far. Age — I’m afraid — becomes irrelevant, much like certain arguments on here.
I’m all for leniency where it is due. Let's wait and see if he’s truly innocent — and if so, then fair enough. If guilty, then this is one Evertonian who would be disappointed to see Everton not properly punish him for Gross Misconduct.
It is immaterial what we all think as Moyes is the one that will decide Baxter’s fate. I would be worried if I was him as Moyes could make an example of him and fire him off it depends on how much he rates him.
The players that you list, Anthony were all match-winners and crucial to their clubs prospects Jose is not personally I do not think he is all that great and Wallace has done more in the games he has played.
If it was Rodwell who was involved the whole thing would be pushed under the carpet as he is a player we need but we would not miss Baxter if he was sacked.
The players that you list, Anthony were all match-winners and crucial to their clubs prospects Jose is not personally I do not think he is all that great and Wallace has done more in the games he has played.
If it was Rodwell who was involved the whole thing would be pushed under the carpet as he is a player we need but we would not miss Baxter if he was sacked.
I agree with Fran.
I’d also say many of the deaths caused by taking these drugs are because they are made underground with minimal safety and hygiene etc. where as if they were legal and regulated they would be purer and properly tested in a lab.
The value of drugs would be reduced through legalisation and regulation too. Drugs aren’t actually that expensive to produce, their value is artificially inflated as they are controlled on a black market. With lower prices there would also be less crime, as they would be cheap enough to buy and not rob for.
This might seem like anarchy with everyone able to buy drugs, but in fact to a large degree the most vunerable people such as children wouldn’t be able to obtain the drugs as they’d need to be bought with ID at a designated chemist or whatever.
At the moment tainted, over priced potentially dangerous drugs are available to all. Regulated would mean cheaper, safer drugs available for those who are able to make free minded adult decision to have an alternate experience. Less crime, less deaths, less people in prison, less violence, tax money would also be generated.
I’d also say many of the deaths caused by taking these drugs are because they are made underground with minimal safety and hygiene etc. where as if they were legal and regulated they would be purer and properly tested in a lab.
The value of drugs would be reduced through legalisation and regulation too. Drugs aren’t actually that expensive to produce, their value is artificially inflated as they are controlled on a black market. With lower prices there would also be less crime, as they would be cheap enough to buy and not rob for.
This might seem like anarchy with everyone able to buy drugs, but in fact to a large degree the most vunerable people such as children wouldn’t be able to obtain the drugs as they’d need to be bought with ID at a designated chemist or whatever.
At the moment tainted, over priced potentially dangerous drugs are available to all. Regulated would mean cheaper, safer drugs available for those who are able to make free minded adult decision to have an alternate experience. Less crime, less deaths, less people in prison, less violence, tax money would also be generated.
Everyone is talking about Jose as if he has been charged with the offences already, why don't we leave it until the club come out with a statement regarding the facts!!!
A lot of you have suddendly become fucking solicitors and law experts!!! Sort it out!
A lot of you have suddendly become fucking solicitors and law experts!!! Sort it out!
Kirkby... how come no one has made the connection with Kirkby and Jose and started an anti-move rant? Everyone a little tired today?
"Let those without sin" and all that.
Why are we passing judgement? If he was Steven G then yeah... fuck him, but he’s not, he’s one of us.
To my knowledge he hasn’t been charged, and I’m sure he’s scared shitless right now, so let's just wait and see how it turns out and like we did with big Dunc show some support!
Why are we passing judgement? If he was Steven G then yeah... fuck him, but he’s not, he’s one of us.
To my knowledge he hasn’t been charged, and I’m sure he’s scared shitless right now, so let's just wait and see how it turns out and like we did with big Dunc show some support!
Anyone who thinks weed is a bad thing should realize the amazing healing powers it has — why this is the first time in a long time I can remember agreeing with Ciarán. Wonderdrug.
It’s entirely possible Jose was "guilty by association" and nothing more. So we should all calm down until we have the facts.
Jamie Rowland: "Firstly, I despise all drugs — they are illegal for a reason and that, roughly, is because they are the scurge of our society — gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs."
The prohibition of alcohol in the US helped fuel massive growth in crime. So do you hate alcohol? It was illegal "for a reason" and helped develop numerous scurges to society. Maybe you do — if you have such a black and white view of narcotics I could appreciate it if you were consistent and also supported banning booze. Regardless, there is a large body of evidence that it is the illegality of the substances (rather than the substances themselves) which contributes to the vast majority of the crime (that’s not to say that the substances don’t also cause trouble — alcohol is legal yet contributes a huge amount of pain and death into the world ... however it’s LESS when it’s legal than when it’s not).
Regardless, football site ... so I for one hope Jose is back playing football (for Everton) very soon.
It’s entirely possible Jose was "guilty by association" and nothing more. So we should all calm down until we have the facts.
Jamie Rowland: "Firstly, I despise all drugs — they are illegal for a reason and that, roughly, is because they are the scurge of our society — gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs."
The prohibition of alcohol in the US helped fuel massive growth in crime. So do you hate alcohol? It was illegal "for a reason" and helped develop numerous scurges to society. Maybe you do — if you have such a black and white view of narcotics I could appreciate it if you were consistent and also supported banning booze. Regardless, there is a large body of evidence that it is the illegality of the substances (rather than the substances themselves) which contributes to the vast majority of the crime (that’s not to say that the substances don’t also cause trouble — alcohol is legal yet contributes a huge amount of pain and death into the world ... however it’s LESS when it’s legal than when it’s not).
Regardless, football site ... so I for one hope Jose is back playing football (for Everton) very soon.
Can't you see it's Green's master plan to turn DK into a huge cannabis plantation — what did you think those floodlights were really for?
The facts need to come out but I would not be surprised if one of the others turns out to be a relative (of Baxter's).
I very much doubt that he is the next Mark Ward or Mickey Thomas though.
The facts need to come out but I would not be surprised if one of the others turns out to be a relative (of Baxter's).
I very much doubt that he is the next Mark Ward or Mickey Thomas though.
I have a friend of a friend of a friend, who has a conection with a Frenchman who knows a man from Columbia, and he said he's never heard of Don Jose... and furthermore, believes Bill Kenwright wouldn't flood Kirkby with pot just to stop any complaints about DK, as he hasn't paid for the last lot.
Have I logged into talk to FRANK.com? Not only are we football experts on this site, we are also narcotic experts. Give yourselves a pat on the back. I think this is a case of a young fella fucking up and getting involved with the wrong company. Maybe he was under pressure from older people and hadn't got the balls or sense to tell them to clear off. But if the fake notes were any good and he has more my mobile number is...
Fancy goin to Kirkby. They need to lock him up and throw away the key. The sly slimy fukin ratbag.
Oops. Sorry, thought we were talkin about Bill Kenwright.
Oops. Sorry, thought we were talkin about Bill Kenwright.
If he is involved, the club should sack him. If he’s not then I hope he stops hanging around with these types of people and gets on with forging a good career for himself, where he can earn a lot of money and stay out of prison.
Those blaming our social problems on drugs alone should bear one word in mind — ALCOHOL. Never in my life have I seen a pot head start a fight in a bar and stab someone (unless they were drinking that is). Like anything in this world, it is all about moderation.
As for Jose, I would go with the poster above, who suggests he may be related to one of the older men. Went for a drive with them, they got pulled, he got caught up in it.
As for Jose, I would go with the poster above, who suggests he may be related to one of the older men. Went for a drive with them, they got pulled, he got caught up in it.
I got arrested on suspicion of wounding with intent on a night out in Manchester once. The fight involved around 20 people, and it was my mate who was bottled and slashed. The police arrested all of us until they could sort the whole mess out. I didn’t even throw a punch, and just tried to pull my mates away. The point is, don’t judge too soon. It could all turn out to be nothing to do with him — wrong place, wrong time jig.
If he is guilty, despite my more relaxed outlook compared to posters above, he should be prosecuted and sacked — same as you or I would be.
Firstly, Jose has not been found guilty of anything yet. If he is, he is not the first 17-year-old or the first footballer to done something wrong.
If he has done something wrong, slap him on the wrist and tell him it’s his one and only warning. Next time he will be out the door.
Even footballers get a second chance. Ask Steven Gerrard, Duncan Ferguson, George Best, Maradona, and how many chances has Joey Barton had but yet still in professional football?
This kid deserves a second chance if found guilty.
If he has done something wrong, slap him on the wrist and tell him it’s his one and only warning. Next time he will be out the door.
Even footballers get a second chance. Ask Steven Gerrard, Duncan Ferguson, George Best, Maradona, and how many chances has Joey Barton had but yet still in professional football?
This kid deserves a second chance if found guilty.
Rob Heib
Somehow, I don't think Jose was carrying the weed for its ’’healing powers’’.
Just because weed may have helped some people, you should also consider the amount of people it has negatively affected, by permanently damaging their brains.
Somehow, I don't think Jose was carrying the weed for its ’’healing powers’’.
Just because weed may have helped some people, you should also consider the amount of people it has negatively affected, by permanently damaging their brains.
"Anyone who thinks weed is a bad thing should realize the amazing healing powers it has — why this is the first time in a long time I can remember agreeing with Ciarán. Wonderdrug."
I think weed is a bad thing. Its a trigger for schizophrenia for one thing, I’ve seen the results and people I’ve worked with have had some very difficult experiences with young people who’d smoked your ’wonderdrug’. Ridiculous things to say, at the very best you can describe it as a Russian Roulette.
I think weed is a bad thing. Its a trigger for schizophrenia for one thing, I’ve seen the results and people I’ve worked with have had some very difficult experiences with young people who’d smoked your ’wonderdrug’. Ridiculous things to say, at the very best you can describe it as a Russian Roulette.
I think Ciaran’s main point is one of hold off the heavy condemnation and draconian sanctions at least until we know what’s happened, and that frankly, even if he’s as guilty as Steven Gerrard they probably won’t do anyone much good anyway.
What do you expect from a Liverpool fan.
Oh and i am completely against all illegal drugs A, B and C; cannabis makes you paranoid and screws your brain cells, I have a couple of mates that will testify to that. And it leads to harder drugs when you don't get the kick from it anymore. So throw away the key if guilty.
Oh and i am completely against all illegal drugs A, B and C; cannabis makes you paranoid and screws your brain cells, I have a couple of mates that will testify to that. And it leads to harder drugs when you don't get the kick from it anymore. So throw away the key if guilty.
Billy Kenny had better potential than Jose Baxter (I wonder if he got the stuff from Brazilian relatives lol).
The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.
There’s no need for the Jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before.
Of someone more deserving of full penalty of the law.
The TW Jury might want to wait until they have something a little more substantial than a report in the post before they advocate throwing away the key
Not many of us grew up in wonderland, those of us who didn’t dabble in hard/soft drugs were probably too pissed or were risking unwanted pregnancy, or STD’s or were buying gear "off the back of a wagon" or whatever other no-good there is to get up to.
I wonder how this kid will get by if he’s "made an example of"? Dodgy mates, no job, disgraced... just what Bootle needs.
IF — and it is a big IF — this lad is convicted of a crime, his only hope will be to be given another chance
As Jason Broome says: let he without sin cast the first one.
There’s no need for the Jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before.
Of someone more deserving of full penalty of the law.
The TW Jury might want to wait until they have something a little more substantial than a report in the post before they advocate throwing away the key
Not many of us grew up in wonderland, those of us who didn’t dabble in hard/soft drugs were probably too pissed or were risking unwanted pregnancy, or STD’s or were buying gear "off the back of a wagon" or whatever other no-good there is to get up to.
I wonder how this kid will get by if he’s "made an example of"? Dodgy mates, no job, disgraced... just what Bootle needs.
IF — and it is a big IF — this lad is convicted of a crime, his only hope will be to be given another chance
As Jason Broome says: let he without sin cast the first one.
Most entertaining thread on Toffeeweb in years. Makes a refreshing change from reading just how shite Ossie and Hibbert are or how much of a scumbag BK is.
Also, as an added bonus, we now know who all the stoners on Toffeeweb are :p
Also, as an added bonus, we now know who all the stoners on Toffeeweb are :p
By the way, can anyone explain why the 17-year-old has been named but not the 29- and 34-year-olds? Shouldn’t it be the other way round?
Phil Neville 34 and Tim Cahill 29
They only went to see where the new stadium was going but had to buy a ten pound weed or get filled in. Tim only had dollars so Phil gave in a nifty fifty and got two dodgy twenties in return, so they're all innocent really, could happen to anyone.
Glad I've cleared that up... Thanks, Bill, for telling me the truth.
I hate this news because:-
1. It makes David Moyes look stupid. Like he can’t control his players.
2. It drags the good name of Everton ’The People’s Club’ through the mud.
3. I have had no end of stick from rival supporters today.
4. All this has been caused by a player who has made 3 or 4 appearances. I would be willing to defend Rodwell or Gosling because they are contributing to Everton. Baxter on the hand has done nothing for the club and if this is the sort of character he is then chances are he never will do anything for Everton.
1. It makes David Moyes look stupid. Like he can’t control his players.
2. It drags the good name of Everton ’The People’s Club’ through the mud.
3. I have had no end of stick from rival supporters today.
4. All this has been caused by a player who has made 3 or 4 appearances. I would be willing to defend Rodwell or Gosling because they are contributing to Everton. Baxter on the hand has done nothing for the club and if this is the sort of character he is then chances are he never will do anything for Everton.
In this day & age of agents and support from the club etc....... you would have thought that any youngster who has been anywhere near a Premier League 1st team (let alone played a few times) would give drugs/booze/etc a wide berth, especially as the rewards for success are so large.
If the allegations are true either (or both) the agent or the club should take a good long look at themselves as there is only one way his career is going to go (and it's not to the World Cup!).
Let's hope he’s chastened enough by the experience not to become another Billy Kenny.
If the allegations are true either (or both) the agent or the club should take a good long look at themselves as there is only one way his career is going to go (and it's not to the World Cup!).
Let's hope he’s chastened enough by the experience not to become another Billy Kenny.
Hahahahaha.... quality shout, Robert!
IF it's true and he knew what was happening then he deserves everything he gets.
There are thousands of 17-year-olds who would tear an arm off to be where he is (closet red or not!).
He signed a new contract in March FFS... it's not like he needs the money.
Worranob!
There are thousands of 17-year-olds who would tear an arm off to be where he is (closet red or not!).
He signed a new contract in March FFS... it's not like he needs the money.
Worranob!
Once the facts in the case are known and it is a fact regarding the drug accusation, Dave Moyes and Everton Football Club are left with no alternative but to let Jose Baxter go.
Chris Lawlor,
I’m glad you’ve succeeded where other prominent academics and professionals have failed..
I’ll look forward to your empiral evidence that proves gateway theory.
I’d point you towards the esteemed earlier comment about paedo’s and bread...But I wouldn’t want to be ’the kid in school who likes stirring the shit but has nothing to add’...er...good one.
So, where were we, oh yes, gateway theory - the floor is yours Chris...
I’m glad you’ve succeeded where other prominent academics and professionals have failed..
I’ll look forward to your empiral evidence that proves gateway theory.
I’d point you towards the esteemed earlier comment about paedo’s and bread...But I wouldn’t want to be ’the kid in school who likes stirring the shit but has nothing to add’...er...good one.
So, where were we, oh yes, gateway theory - the floor is yours Chris...
Jamie,
If you are an experienced drug counsellor or are involved in drugs advice in any way — and think that taking a couple of puffs on a joint is equivalent to other drug problems, and that gateway theory is proven... then you should be sacked — for gross incompetence.
I don’t need to know you to negate the rubbish you post.
If you are an experienced drug counsellor or are involved in drugs advice in any way — and think that taking a couple of puffs on a joint is equivalent to other drug problems, and that gateway theory is proven... then you should be sacked — for gross incompetence.
I don’t need to know you to negate the rubbish you post.
Ciaran, you’re arguments lose credibility when you endorse the Paedo/Bread comment!
It’ll be interesting to see how much weed there was and what the verdict on Jose is...
It’ll be interesting to see how much weed there was and what the verdict on Jose is...
Ha ha ha! Very good Robert Daniels!!!
As much as drugs can ruin lives, so can some of the opinions posted here. As people keep saying, we don’t know the facts, but certainly regardless of how the police/courts (should it get that far) handle this, Baxter’s Everton career rests probably most in his own hands in regards to how he approaches David Moyes.
While I agree with the Fran/Ciarán side of things from a broader perspective, whilst he wasn’t selling PCP to primary school kids (or anyone else for that matter), Jose is in a very privileged position. He is an ambassador of the club and has undoubted talent, but then he would be the first player to piss his chances away. Hopefully this will be a short sharp shock and he’ll steer clear of this kind of shit in the future.
As much as drugs can ruin lives, so can some of the opinions posted here. As people keep saying, we don’t know the facts, but certainly regardless of how the police/courts (should it get that far) handle this, Baxter’s Everton career rests probably most in his own hands in regards to how he approaches David Moyes.
While I agree with the Fran/Ciarán side of things from a broader perspective, whilst he wasn’t selling PCP to primary school kids (or anyone else for that matter), Jose is in a very privileged position. He is an ambassador of the club and has undoubted talent, but then he would be the first player to piss his chances away. Hopefully this will be a short sharp shock and he’ll steer clear of this kind of shit in the future.
I for once completely agree with Ciarán McGlone. Baxter is just a teenager being a teenager. "Boys will be boys" as the quote goes. I think a slap on the wrist is what he will get and Moyes will cut his bollocks off in the process.
I think he might need to find some new friends and use his popularity wisely.
I think he might need to find some new friends and use his popularity wisely.
Thank God we do have the law! Otherwise we’d be following the mob law on here; be guilty before proven, guilty by asociation and guilty for being a RedShite. (Oh hang on, that last ones not too bad).
At the end of the day, teenagers make stupid mistakes. I know I did. But does that meen that they all turn out to be drugged-up, house-breaking pimps? No. Most will look back and think "oops".
Let's wait and see if he gets charged (because that hasn't even happened yet!!)
Then we see what happens in court. Then we pass judgement! The law protects people who have commited crimes as well, so he won't be fired as many people seem to want. He’ll probably be given a caution or suspended sentence (if guilty), and most people will forget this whole palava when he scores for us.
At the end of the day, teenagers make stupid mistakes. I know I did. But does that meen that they all turn out to be drugged-up, house-breaking pimps? No. Most will look back and think "oops".
Let's wait and see if he gets charged (because that hasn't even happened yet!!)
Then we see what happens in court. Then we pass judgement! The law protects people who have commited crimes as well, so he won't be fired as many people seem to want. He’ll probably be given a caution or suspended sentence (if guilty), and most people will forget this whole palava when he scores for us.
Ciaran! Ciaran...Ciaran.....
Passing a joint does not count as ’intent to supply’. I’ve heard you spout some nonsense on here, but this is fantastic. Intent to supply is based on the ’amount’ of drugs found, the actual physical passing of a drug, in the manner in which you have determined ’supply’ is not applicable to the charge of ’intent’ to supply (different charge/subsection).
Passing a joint does not count as ’intent to supply’. I’ve heard you spout some nonsense on here, but this is fantastic. Intent to supply is based on the ’amount’ of drugs found, the actual physical passing of a drug, in the manner in which you have determined ’supply’ is not applicable to the charge of ’intent’ to supply (different charge/subsection).
I wonder how you have the audacity to set yourselves up as an authority on all such matters! But having worked in the profession for four years, I’ve got an idea over what counts as intent to supply... and passing a joint doesn't count... the clue is in the word ’intent’...
Basically he has been a silly silly boy, and of course we can look to excuse his actions on account of age, and it is obviously a factor for consideration, but we all (well most of us) know that such behaviour, if it not be a massive overreaction by the press, is unacceptable. He will in all likelihood given his age (and no prior conviction to my knowledge?) and providing a silly amount of money/drugs are not involved, stay out of prison, but unfortunately it’s tarnished his reputation before he has began to make an impact whatever the outcome.
And Ciaran... I dont think possession with an intent to supply and possession of counterfeit money is really applicable to the sentence ’teenager acts like a teenager, shocker’... I know England has gone downhill but come on...
Ciarán McGlone, when you are not talking about internal Everton politics, you make a lot of sense. Couldn’t agree with you anymore.
Baxter is 17, I got caught with weed at 17, should I’ve been thrown in prison?
If you thinks the likes of cannabis is comparable to crack cocaine or crystal meth, then you are simply uneducated. (BTW, anything can be a ’gateway’ to gettin off your face; glue, strong cider...)
If anyone can sort this out, Moyes can.
Final point, somebody mentioned how other fans will be giving them shit all day.... do you need the Samaritans phone number?
Baxter is 17, I got caught with weed at 17, should I’ve been thrown in prison?
If you thinks the likes of cannabis is comparable to crack cocaine or crystal meth, then you are simply uneducated. (BTW, anything can be a ’gateway’ to gettin off your face; glue, strong cider...)
If anyone can sort this out, Moyes can.
Final point, somebody mentioned how other fans will be giving them shit all day.... do you need the Samaritans phone number?
Timmy,
Maybe I should have clarified my words...you are indeed right, my words are somewhat confusing on the matter...What I meant to post was that admitting to an intention to pass a joint is intent to supply..under the letter of the law...
Again i’ll repeat my main point...quantity is irrelevant. You are simply wrong..
If you can point me in the direction of a statute or CPS guideline that states otherwise...I’d be happy to concede the point...
Maybe I should have clarified my words...you are indeed right, my words are somewhat confusing on the matter...What I meant to post was that admitting to an intention to pass a joint is intent to supply..under the letter of the law...
Again i’ll repeat my main point...quantity is irrelevant. You are simply wrong..
If you can point me in the direction of a statute or CPS guideline that states otherwise...I’d be happy to concede the point...
On Monday night, on national television, I saw a Villa fan waving fake money at Garreth Barry.
How come HE wasn’t arrested?
It seems it’s one law for sarcastic Villa fans and one law for 17 year old Everton players on the verge (if there’s injuries) of the first team.
Actually, come to think of it, it’s possible that if Baxter does play again, he could be mocked by supporters waving REAL money.
Now THAT is comedy!
How come HE wasn’t arrested?
It seems it’s one law for sarcastic Villa fans and one law for 17 year old Everton players on the verge (if there’s injuries) of the first team.
Actually, come to think of it, it’s possible that if Baxter does play again, he could be mocked by supporters waving REAL money.
Now THAT is comedy!
Jamie,
If you are an experienced drug counsellor or are involved in drugs advice in any way — and think that taking a couple of puffs on a joint is equivalent to other drug problems, and that gateway theory is proven... then you should be sacked — for gross incompetence.
I don’t need to know you to negate the rubbish you post.
Ciaron - please...i agree with most of the stuff you post on this site...but you really need to read and intepret what i say correctly.
Firstly a few puffs of weed - or getting caught with a bit of ’persona’ use usually results in a caution and a slap on the wrist (or a few laps of a school field if your 17!).
In this case, they have been found to enough quantity to constitute ’intent to supply’ - and in all likely hood its probably a quantity divided into smaller quantities - backing up the police’s claims - although this is speculation on my part.
A few puffs on a joint, while still illegal, is not as serious as most other drug offences - and i never mentioned that- in this particular case, no one was taking a few puffs of a joint??
I think that where you misinterpreted my point is simply that in my experience...the flood gates for many drug takers are unlocked when they start on the softer ’more acceptable, they dont do you any harm’ drugs.
I nonsense the latter part of that sentence on a very regular basis.
So back to Jose Baxter and his arrest. He has been arrested for possession with the intent to supply. That is worse than smoking a joint because it means that he (if indeed guilty) is helping others to feed their habit (note: I am not saying that weed is physically addictive - although there is some evidence to suggest this).
On another note Ciaron- I will back you up...passing a joint to a mate does qualify as supply (no intent as it is ACTUAL supply) - so whoever ridiculed you for that should apologise. Granted, it has never led to a serious conviction that I can recall but nevertheless, it is classed as supply and could (but not very likely) land someone in prison. The maximum sentence for Class C being 14yrs! (again, highly unlikely!).
So to suggest that I am incompetent in this area is outrageous. What I see frequently - even with class C drugs - is heartache, upset and big problems. Kids of 12/13 (sometimes younger) taking a ’few puffs of a joint’ is not something that should be brushed to one side with the sweeping statement (see what i did there?) that its ’just a bit of weed’...
Baxter, if involved, is in my opinion, playing a part in those kids getting their hands on a drug. Perhaps not directly - but the fact that there was intent to supply suggests that it has been supplied in the past (unproven) and that could have landed in the hand of a young, impressionable teenager.
So I agree - weed is a softer drug and getting caught with a bit or a joint is hardly headline news. Getting caught with enough to profit from is a different ball game.
If you are an experienced drug counsellor or are involved in drugs advice in any way — and think that taking a couple of puffs on a joint is equivalent to other drug problems, and that gateway theory is proven... then you should be sacked — for gross incompetence.
I don’t need to know you to negate the rubbish you post.
Ciaron - please...i agree with most of the stuff you post on this site...but you really need to read and intepret what i say correctly.
Firstly a few puffs of weed - or getting caught with a bit of ’persona’ use usually results in a caution and a slap on the wrist (or a few laps of a school field if your 17!).
In this case, they have been found to enough quantity to constitute ’intent to supply’ - and in all likely hood its probably a quantity divided into smaller quantities - backing up the police’s claims - although this is speculation on my part.
A few puffs on a joint, while still illegal, is not as serious as most other drug offences - and i never mentioned that- in this particular case, no one was taking a few puffs of a joint??
I think that where you misinterpreted my point is simply that in my experience...the flood gates for many drug takers are unlocked when they start on the softer ’more acceptable, they dont do you any harm’ drugs.
I nonsense the latter part of that sentence on a very regular basis.
So back to Jose Baxter and his arrest. He has been arrested for possession with the intent to supply. That is worse than smoking a joint because it means that he (if indeed guilty) is helping others to feed their habit (note: I am not saying that weed is physically addictive - although there is some evidence to suggest this).
On another note Ciaron- I will back you up...passing a joint to a mate does qualify as supply (no intent as it is ACTUAL supply) - so whoever ridiculed you for that should apologise. Granted, it has never led to a serious conviction that I can recall but nevertheless, it is classed as supply and could (but not very likely) land someone in prison. The maximum sentence for Class C being 14yrs! (again, highly unlikely!).
So to suggest that I am incompetent in this area is outrageous. What I see frequently - even with class C drugs - is heartache, upset and big problems. Kids of 12/13 (sometimes younger) taking a ’few puffs of a joint’ is not something that should be brushed to one side with the sweeping statement (see what i did there?) that its ’just a bit of weed’...
Baxter, if involved, is in my opinion, playing a part in those kids getting their hands on a drug. Perhaps not directly - but the fact that there was intent to supply suggests that it has been supplied in the past (unproven) and that could have landed in the hand of a young, impressionable teenager.
So I agree - weed is a softer drug and getting caught with a bit or a joint is hardly headline news. Getting caught with enough to profit from is a different ball game.
Jamie,
Firstly you stated this
"I despise all drugs — they are illegal for a reason and that, roughly, is because they are the scurge of our society — gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs"
Which is clearly a naive and somewhat dangerous conflation of all drugs under the same banner - and all held together with an inflamatory reference to further criminal activity.
Secondly, you said that "Baxter should be made an example of" - which suggests singling him out for special punitive sanctions from both Everton and the law...
Thirdly, you stated categorically that Gateway theory was a fact, and it is nothing of the sort..
I do not need to interpret your posts....they are quite explicit in thei9r content..And I don’t agree with one bit of them.
If Baxter is guilty, then due process will deal with him under the law - and I hope, unlike you that the club show a little understanding and generosity in their approach to him regarding his contract of employment.
Firstly you stated this
"I despise all drugs — they are illegal for a reason and that, roughly, is because they are the scurge of our society — gun crime, theft, muggings can frequently be related to drugs"
Which is clearly a naive and somewhat dangerous conflation of all drugs under the same banner - and all held together with an inflamatory reference to further criminal activity.
Secondly, you said that "Baxter should be made an example of" - which suggests singling him out for special punitive sanctions from both Everton and the law...
Thirdly, you stated categorically that Gateway theory was a fact, and it is nothing of the sort..
I do not need to interpret your posts....they are quite explicit in thei9r content..And I don’t agree with one bit of them.
If Baxter is guilty, then due process will deal with him under the law - and I hope, unlike you that the club show a little understanding and generosity in their approach to him regarding his contract of employment.
P.S By the way Jamie I am certainly not dismissing the extent or destruction of drug problems - I simply think there’s a tendency towards reactionary hysteria in regards to certain drugs that is neither helpful nor healthy.
Jamie someone who proclaims to have their finger firmly on the pulse of drug rehabilitation, I’m aghast you have missed the simple fact the cannabis is not Class C (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/).
Worse though is this 1+1="helping others to feed their habit", without knowing the facts. If ever there was a way in which to help someone slide down the slippery slope it’s having an attitude like this.
As
Ciarán wrote, in effect if each of them had a quantity each then as a collective the Police could have deemed it as intent to supply. The fact is without the full facts please do not label him as a drug dealer - he’s been arrested not convicted.
Worse though is this 1+1="helping others to feed their habit", without knowing the facts. If ever there was a way in which to help someone slide down the slippery slope it’s having an attitude like this.
As
Ciarán wrote, in effect if each of them had a quantity each then as a collective the Police could have deemed it as intent to supply. The fact is without the full facts please do not label him as a drug dealer - he’s been arrested not convicted.
Despite scarce information TW barrack room lawyers debate the pros and cons of Baxter’s case like a pack of hungry wolves slavering over a carcase.
Scenarios are drawn and re drawn, sympathisers plead for mercy, hang em’ high is the cry from the other side.
The only known facts are, Jose and two others were arrested on suspicion of dealing and possession of counterfeit money. All three were released on bail.
I am puzzled why the media was allowed to publish personal details and photos of a minor and not his much older associates.
I also wonder why his 29 and 34yo associates are described by various posters as ‘lads’.
At what age do lads become men with the responsibilities that title implys.
Marijuana is a major cause of mental disorder and wrecks the lives of thousands of young people and their families. Source: Any reputable medical research.
The majority of anti social acts are caused by the supply, use and pursuit of drugs. Source: Any criminal or social statistics.
Most hard drug users have their introduction or gateway to the drug culture via marijuana. Source: recently retired chief constable of London who quoted numerous findings.
Argument can be made that alcohol is equally disruptive and dangerous to families and in that regard I can only say that two wrongs do not make a right.
Counterfeit money can do enormous damage to a country and quite rightly is declared a number one crime.
In Baxters unfolding situation where do Everton’s best interest lie?
Development of home grown talent is our main hope of matching rich clubs. Parents of potential academy players would be most concerned should the clubs integrity and standards be found wanting.
Everton should not be seen as condoning any level of criminal activity,.
Baxter should be well able to afford his own defence and if found innocent then let him resume his connection with football. Until the matter is resolved the lad should be suspended.
We all know of much more serious cases where ‘he is only a kid’ was not a valid excuse
Scenarios are drawn and re drawn, sympathisers plead for mercy, hang em’ high is the cry from the other side.
The only known facts are, Jose and two others were arrested on suspicion of dealing and possession of counterfeit money. All three were released on bail.
I am puzzled why the media was allowed to publish personal details and photos of a minor and not his much older associates.
I also wonder why his 29 and 34yo associates are described by various posters as ‘lads’.
At what age do lads become men with the responsibilities that title implys.
Marijuana is a major cause of mental disorder and wrecks the lives of thousands of young people and their families. Source: Any reputable medical research.
The majority of anti social acts are caused by the supply, use and pursuit of drugs. Source: Any criminal or social statistics.
Most hard drug users have their introduction or gateway to the drug culture via marijuana. Source: recently retired chief constable of London who quoted numerous findings.
Argument can be made that alcohol is equally disruptive and dangerous to families and in that regard I can only say that two wrongs do not make a right.
Counterfeit money can do enormous damage to a country and quite rightly is declared a number one crime.
In Baxters unfolding situation where do Everton’s best interest lie?
Development of home grown talent is our main hope of matching rich clubs. Parents of potential academy players would be most concerned should the clubs integrity and standards be found wanting.
Everton should not be seen as condoning any level of criminal activity,.
Baxter should be well able to afford his own defence and if found innocent then let him resume his connection with football. Until the matter is resolved the lad should be suspended.
We all know of much more serious cases where ‘he is only a kid’ was not a valid excuse
"Marijuana is a major cause of mental disorder and wrecks the lives of thousands of young people and their families. Source: Any reputable medical research."
------------------------------
Absolute bollocks....another person who seems to have re-written medical research on cannabis.
There is not a single peer reviewed and substantiated article that claims that cannabis ’causes’ mental illness...Perhaps ’barrack room physicians’ should learn the meaning of the word ’causation’.
"The majority of anti social acts are caused by the supply, use and pursuit of drugs. Source: Any criminal or social statistics."
-----------------------------
again .... a flagrant disregard for the meaning of ’causation’...let alone a complete fabrication of the reasoning behind crime...I’d love to see any of these crime statistics that actually take a random stab in the dark and lay the fault of the crime at the door of drugs...Supposition at its daftest.
------------------------------
Absolute bollocks....another person who seems to have re-written medical research on cannabis.
There is not a single peer reviewed and substantiated article that claims that cannabis ’causes’ mental illness...Perhaps ’barrack room physicians’ should learn the meaning of the word ’causation’.
"The majority of anti social acts are caused by the supply, use and pursuit of drugs. Source: Any criminal or social statistics."
-----------------------------
again .... a flagrant disregard for the meaning of ’causation’...let alone a complete fabrication of the reasoning behind crime...I’d love to see any of these crime statistics that actually take a random stab in the dark and lay the fault of the crime at the door of drugs...Supposition at its daftest.
Oh and nice to see you see the words of a retired police officer as proof of gateway theory...whenever esteemed academics can’t prove it...
Maybe, like you - he doesn’t appreciate the meaning of causation..
Maybe, like you - he doesn’t appreciate the meaning of causation..
To lighten the reading from those on either side of the arguament that this note has created, doesn’t Jose Baxter look like Holly Johnson in his press pictures?
Back on football matters, not only did Baxter play for the reserves last night he played for 61 mins
given the lack of a comment on the os and the fact that hes playing he must have provided a credible account of his involvment or lack of in the matter
given the lack of a comment on the os and the fact that hes playing he must have provided a credible account of his involvment or lack of in the matter
Ciaran,
In Google type the word Marijuana
but be prepared for several hours if not days or weeks of research as your monitor fills with page after endless page of information about the effects of the drug.
Eminent specialists in the field state their views plus there are umpteen surveys from most countries.
You might care to check the latest survey made by Holland, once a leader in decriminalising the weed. That country admits the error of its ways and is seeking measures to correct its mistake.
I could go on but I think it could be a case of, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.
In Google type the word Marijuana
but be prepared for several hours if not days or weeks of research as your monitor fills with page after endless page of information about the effects of the drug.
Eminent specialists in the field state their views plus there are umpteen surveys from most countries.
You might care to check the latest survey made by Holland, once a leader in decriminalising the weed. That country admits the error of its ways and is seeking measures to correct its mistake.
I could go on but I think it could be a case of, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.
"If found innocent let him resume his connection with football, until the matter is resolved the lad should be suspended."
Dangerously close to presuming he’s guilty until proven Innocent Dick.
Dangerously close to presuming he’s guilty until proven Innocent Dick.
You should have quit while you were ahead Ciaran. Could you do us all a favour and get in touch with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to share with them the benefits of your wisdom:
"Mental health problems
There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?
Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.
Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.
Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.
Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.
Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well."
More can be found here.
None of this was difficult to research. There’s plenty of other stuff from reputable sources on the internet as well.
"Mental health problems
There is growing evidence that people with serious mental illness, including depression and psychosis, are more likely to use cannabis or have used it for long periods of time in the past. Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?
Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents.
Depression
A study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case - children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis. However, adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.
Schizophrenia
Three major studies followed large numbers of people over several years, and showed that those people who use cannabis have a higher than average risk of developing schizophrenia. If you start smoking it before the age of 15, you are 4 times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder by the time you are 26. They found no evidence of self-medication. It seemed that, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop symptoms.
Why should teenagers be particularly vulnerable to the use of cannabis? No one knows for certain, but it may be something to do with brain development. The brain is still developing in the teenage years – up to the age of around 20, in fact. A massive process of ‘neural pruning’ is going on. This is rather like streamlining a tangled jumble of circuits so they can work more effectively. Any experience, or substance, that affects this process has the potential to produce long-term psychological effects.
Recent research in Europe, and in the UK, has suggested that people who have a family background of mental illness – and so probably have a genetic vulnerability anyway - are more likely to develop schizophrenia if they use cannabis as well."
More can be found here.
None of this was difficult to research. There’s plenty of other stuff from reputable sources on the internet as well.
As for my quoting the chief constable of London, I would rather heed his view on such matters as crime and its causes.
If drugs are harmless as you seem to suggest why not give us the latest cime figures from your own home town showing what percentage is drug related.
If drugs are harmless as you seem to suggest why not give us the latest cime figures from your own home town showing what percentage is drug related.
Dick, I’d prefer not to get my information from google..or the daily mail...As for your reference to the chief constable - I’d rather give more credence to the scientific researchers who are qualified to make such calls - rather than a chief constable who is not.
Mike,
It seems you also do not understand the word ’causation’...There is empirical evidence to suggest that prolonged use of cannabis might be a potential factor in the development of certain psychological conditions which are already prevailing in the individuals concerned..in much the same way as alcohol is also considered to be a trigger mechanism - this is NOT CAUSATION.
If you going to try and contradict me, at least stick to the point I’m addressing..To state that cannabis ’causes’ mental illness not only shows a fundamental misunderstading of ’cause’ but also ignores that it is simpky one of many underlying factors in the understanding of mental illness..
I should have quit while I was ahead?Maybe you shouldn’t have bothered...Your cited evidence only cements what I’ve said.
Mike,
It seems you also do not understand the word ’causation’...There is empirical evidence to suggest that prolonged use of cannabis might be a potential factor in the development of certain psychological conditions which are already prevailing in the individuals concerned..in much the same way as alcohol is also considered to be a trigger mechanism - this is NOT CAUSATION.
If you going to try and contradict me, at least stick to the point I’m addressing..To state that cannabis ’causes’ mental illness not only shows a fundamental misunderstading of ’cause’ but also ignores that it is simpky one of many underlying factors in the understanding of mental illness..
I should have quit while I was ahead?Maybe you shouldn’t have bothered...Your cited evidence only cements what I’ve said.
Guys - just cos Jose looks like Holly Johnson doesn’t mean that you have to act out "Two Tribes" just "Relax" a bit
Can I please clairfy a few points:
1. Possession with intent to supply can be the passing of a joint as there is no minimum amount in order for it to be considered supply. Any comments to the contrary are wrong, and probably refer to CPS guidance on when to charge offences as supply.
2. Jose has not been charged but released on police bail to return to the police station at a later date, as the police have insufficient evidence with which to proceed at the moment.
3. The further evidence they will be looking for is possibly to confirm that it is canabis (unlikely as this drug can be "field tested" rather than laboratory tested), maybe to confirm whether or not the money is counterfeit or to find other evidence of supply by analysing phones, and gathering inteliigence regarding the suspects movements and alleged involvement in the offence.
4. Everything is supposition at the moment, but it is worth noting that the police arrest high (such as possession with intent) whilst the CPS charge low (simple possession).
5. Advice from solicitors in Merseyside is typically that their clients should not answer questions, particuarly where the police have provided in adequate disclosure. If all three remained silent, then you would expect them to be bailed (and bailed again and again ...) before the police eventually pinning simple possession on one of them and perhaps adminstering a caution or a charge for which they will be fined on an early guilty plea at court. The counterfeit money allegation is not serious unless there is a substantial amount (as with the canabis).
Finally, I would not be suprised to see no further action being taken against Jose, whilst i would be suprised if he is charged with possession with intent to supply.
1. Possession with intent to supply can be the passing of a joint as there is no minimum amount in order for it to be considered supply. Any comments to the contrary are wrong, and probably refer to CPS guidance on when to charge offences as supply.
2. Jose has not been charged but released on police bail to return to the police station at a later date, as the police have insufficient evidence with which to proceed at the moment.
3. The further evidence they will be looking for is possibly to confirm that it is canabis (unlikely as this drug can be "field tested" rather than laboratory tested), maybe to confirm whether or not the money is counterfeit or to find other evidence of supply by analysing phones, and gathering inteliigence regarding the suspects movements and alleged involvement in the offence.
4. Everything is supposition at the moment, but it is worth noting that the police arrest high (such as possession with intent) whilst the CPS charge low (simple possession).
5. Advice from solicitors in Merseyside is typically that their clients should not answer questions, particuarly where the police have provided in adequate disclosure. If all three remained silent, then you would expect them to be bailed (and bailed again and again ...) before the police eventually pinning simple possession on one of them and perhaps adminstering a caution or a charge for which they will be fined on an early guilty plea at court. The counterfeit money allegation is not serious unless there is a substantial amount (as with the canabis).
Finally, I would not be suprised to see no further action being taken against Jose, whilst i would be suprised if he is charged with possession with intent to supply.
Another point. If Jose keeps quiet and his mates tell the police that the drugs and money is theirs, then it will be difficult, without strong contradictory evidence, for the police to charge Jose with anything, particularly on CPS advice.
But Timmy’s been involved with the law for four years Steve...do you mean he is wrong?
Well I never.
Well I never.
He most definately is wrong. However, you wonder what he actually means by "being involved in law", maybe he can clear this up.
An own goal I reckon...showing ones stripes in order to win an argument..
Maybe he’s a security guard.
Maybe he’s a security guard.
Ian Tunstead and Mike Allison ... you both missed the intent of my "wonderdrug" statement rather remarkably. It seems your minds have been suitably addled without the help of any narcotics. Whilst I do not consider it as evil as you, it was simply a joke about how the subject matter (rather than the drug itself) has had me agreing with Ciarán for the first time -- thus it has "healing powers" (a rather ham-fisted and obvious double meaning pun ... or so I thought). Neither of us have figured out a way to smoke via a website yet (although if the editors could figure that out I have a feeling the adsense revenue would pale in comparison) so you’ll be surprised to learn we have not actually ingested any together during this thread.
Totally off-topic thread but I’ve actually quite enjoyed this. Although it won’t be long before someone manages to tie it all back to Osman and Hibbo ("I bet this is the reason they’re so error-prone on the pitch!")
Totally off-topic thread but I’ve actually quite enjoyed this. Although it won’t be long before someone manages to tie it all back to Osman and Hibbo ("I bet this is the reason they’re so error-prone on the pitch!")
Jamie someone who proclaims to have their finger firmly on the pulse of drug rehabilitation, I’m aghast you have missed the simple fact the cannabis is not Class C (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/).
...
No its not class C as it was (last year i think) re-categorised but it is still dealt with on the streets as a class C - partly because prosecuting somebody for having a bit of weed on them is really not worth the police time.
Ciaran - I am not classifying drugs under the same umbrella for their effects directly..I am stating that all addicts start somewhere and most start with what many consider to be ’soft drugs’.
To qualify my position (and i feel that I need to). I have worked (unpaid) with DAAT, AA, NA, Outreach and the lighthouse project on many occassions. I have seen the pits of drug abuse and I have seen the joys of rehab - I have also seen the devastating effects that abuse has on both the addict and his/her family. I can give loads of examples and even introduce you to those addicts that started life on drugs by saying ’its only a few puffs of a joint’ and one of my favourites ’i only do it when i’m out’ (brilliant that one - wish i had a pound everytime i heard an addict say that!).
While they (the addict) should take their fair share of the blame, the lifestyle that they are accustomed too and the associations that they make often means that many revert back to substance abuse almost without resistance after rehab. On many of those relapse occassions, a lot of the blame (NOT ALL) can be put at the feet of the dealers who target previous ’customers’ until they break. Yes, they should have the will power to resist but addictive personalities - something which i regard as an illness when in extreme, rarely have will power.
So my arguement, which i obviously didn’t state correctly enough above, is that drug abuse is about supply and demand in almost equal proportions. (okay, they both fluctuate but they average at the same rates).
Remove supply and you will see a massive surge in demand...that will eventually petter out to nothing if supply isn’t restored. (supply can never be stopped - i accept this - thats why i help recovery by attempting to lower demand).
When I see and read about dealers being caught - i can only be happy. Its a victory against the illness that is drug abuse.
IF (yes IF) baxter is involved in dealing then he should be punished. Law aside, the club must take action if he’s guilty. IF.
That action has to be, given the severity of the situation (dealing), termination of employment. Had he been caught with a joint in his pocket or enough for personal use (if he’s been caught at all), then fair enough - a decent bollocking and a couple of laps around finch farm will be suffice.
But dealing, for me, is a different animal and should be dealt with stringently..
...but please, I am merely stating my opinion IF he is guilty of a crime. If he is not and can explain himself to the law’s satisfaction, then that is fine. If he can’t and is prosecuted..well, you know my response.
...
No its not class C as it was (last year i think) re-categorised but it is still dealt with on the streets as a class C - partly because prosecuting somebody for having a bit of weed on them is really not worth the police time.
Ciaran - I am not classifying drugs under the same umbrella for their effects directly..I am stating that all addicts start somewhere and most start with what many consider to be ’soft drugs’.
To qualify my position (and i feel that I need to). I have worked (unpaid) with DAAT, AA, NA, Outreach and the lighthouse project on many occassions. I have seen the pits of drug abuse and I have seen the joys of rehab - I have also seen the devastating effects that abuse has on both the addict and his/her family. I can give loads of examples and even introduce you to those addicts that started life on drugs by saying ’its only a few puffs of a joint’ and one of my favourites ’i only do it when i’m out’ (brilliant that one - wish i had a pound everytime i heard an addict say that!).
While they (the addict) should take their fair share of the blame, the lifestyle that they are accustomed too and the associations that they make often means that many revert back to substance abuse almost without resistance after rehab. On many of those relapse occassions, a lot of the blame (NOT ALL) can be put at the feet of the dealers who target previous ’customers’ until they break. Yes, they should have the will power to resist but addictive personalities - something which i regard as an illness when in extreme, rarely have will power.
So my arguement, which i obviously didn’t state correctly enough above, is that drug abuse is about supply and demand in almost equal proportions. (okay, they both fluctuate but they average at the same rates).
Remove supply and you will see a massive surge in demand...that will eventually petter out to nothing if supply isn’t restored. (supply can never be stopped - i accept this - thats why i help recovery by attempting to lower demand).
When I see and read about dealers being caught - i can only be happy. Its a victory against the illness that is drug abuse.
IF (yes IF) baxter is involved in dealing then he should be punished. Law aside, the club must take action if he’s guilty. IF.
That action has to be, given the severity of the situation (dealing), termination of employment. Had he been caught with a joint in his pocket or enough for personal use (if he’s been caught at all), then fair enough - a decent bollocking and a couple of laps around finch farm will be suffice.
But dealing, for me, is a different animal and should be dealt with stringently..
...but please, I am merely stating my opinion IF he is guilty of a crime. If he is not and can explain himself to the law’s satisfaction, then that is fine. If he can’t and is prosecuted..well, you know my response.
Jamie,
The majority of your post referred to problems with hard drugs after making a casual and causal link from soft drugs to the more destructive narcotics...
This is the problem with your viewpoint - it makes a connection that is not proven in science..and while you continue to do you will be rightly ridiculed for it..
This is not an argument about hard drugs..it’s not even an argument about soft drugs - it’s an argument about whether 17 year olds, or anybody for that matter - should be allowed to make mistakes without being consigned to the dustbin of society. I solemnly believe your hardened position creates more problems than it solves..and I’m surprised that someone with a C.V such as yours is so intransient to the vagaries of life...
The majority of your post referred to problems with hard drugs after making a casual and causal link from soft drugs to the more destructive narcotics...
This is the problem with your viewpoint - it makes a connection that is not proven in science..and while you continue to do you will be rightly ridiculed for it..
This is not an argument about hard drugs..it’s not even an argument about soft drugs - it’s an argument about whether 17 year olds, or anybody for that matter - should be allowed to make mistakes without being consigned to the dustbin of society. I solemnly believe your hardened position creates more problems than it solves..and I’m surprised that someone with a C.V such as yours is so intransient to the vagaries of life...
Oh and by the way - contrary to your assertion - there is no golden line in law between supplying and simple possession .... It is a matter of evidence and law - rather than fact...a position which I thought you had already accepted...
Some people need to calm down a bit with the moralistic tone on his possession of cannabis. It’s just cannabis, it’s hardly crack-cocaine. Jeez. Personally, the counterfeit cash is more of a concern to me. Being found with a quantity of fake money looks bad, and signifies someone in the car has links to organised crime.
But still, until we know differently, let’s just assume he’s a daft lad that won’t make the same mistake twice, eh?
But still, until we know differently, let’s just assume he’s a daft lad that won’t make the same mistake twice, eh?
Steve Ferns - With respect to your point 1)
You are wrong! We are talking about a possible charge of ’intent to supply’, not a charge of supply. You are confusing ’intent’ with actual supply. Try researching the word intent. You’ve done what Ciaran done, namely - ’Don’t talk Bollocks...Passing a joint constitutes intent to supply...’
Based on the current information available, the likelyhood is that the individuals concerned have been found with a quantity of drugs (or dealing paraphernalia) which could be deemed as excess of that which can reasonably be assumed to be for personal use.
Furthermore I don’t know how anyone can deny that there are strong correlations between the use of drugs and mental illness when numerous studies in recent years have shown a strong correlation. It is not simply the case that reports suggest that those with mental disorders are more likely to take drugs or any other of the similar paper arguments. There was a quite famous study undertaken in New Zealand (1000 people tracked over 25 years) based on Cannabis use and mental health effects which found that smoking Cannabis nearly doubled the risk of developing mental illness. The scientists concerned ’suggested’ that the increase could be explained by chemical changes in the brain caused by cannabis use. Obviously the reasons why there are a strong correlation are currently and will likely remain for sometime unclear, but there is a strong correlation.
Back on topic. It’s just a shame that he has been involved, even it transpires that Baxter is an innocent party in the eyes of the law, with the nature of media etc, it will likely hang over him for sometime in the same way as youthful mistakes effected the reputations of Terry, Woodgate etc..
You are wrong! We are talking about a possible charge of ’intent to supply’, not a charge of supply. You are confusing ’intent’ with actual supply. Try researching the word intent. You’ve done what Ciaran done, namely - ’Don’t talk Bollocks...Passing a joint constitutes intent to supply...’
Based on the current information available, the likelyhood is that the individuals concerned have been found with a quantity of drugs (or dealing paraphernalia) which could be deemed as excess of that which can reasonably be assumed to be for personal use.
Furthermore I don’t know how anyone can deny that there are strong correlations between the use of drugs and mental illness when numerous studies in recent years have shown a strong correlation. It is not simply the case that reports suggest that those with mental disorders are more likely to take drugs or any other of the similar paper arguments. There was a quite famous study undertaken in New Zealand (1000 people tracked over 25 years) based on Cannabis use and mental health effects which found that smoking Cannabis nearly doubled the risk of developing mental illness. The scientists concerned ’suggested’ that the increase could be explained by chemical changes in the brain caused by cannabis use. Obviously the reasons why there are a strong correlation are currently and will likely remain for sometime unclear, but there is a strong correlation.
Back on topic. It’s just a shame that he has been involved, even it transpires that Baxter is an innocent party in the eyes of the law, with the nature of media etc, it will likely hang over him for sometime in the same way as youthful mistakes effected the reputations of Terry, Woodgate etc..
Timmy,
And still you failed to prove your assertion that ’Intent to supply is based on the amount’?
The amount may indicate evidence of ’intent to supply’ - but that’s hardly the same as saying that ’Intent to supply’ requires a certain amount - it simply doesn’t.
...In the same way that ’correlations between the use of drugs and mental illness’ - is not the same as drugs CAUSING mental illness...
Just admit you got both things wrong and move on...just like young Baxter should be allowed to...
And still you failed to prove your assertion that ’Intent to supply is based on the amount’?
The amount may indicate evidence of ’intent to supply’ - but that’s hardly the same as saying that ’Intent to supply’ requires a certain amount - it simply doesn’t.
...In the same way that ’correlations between the use of drugs and mental illness’ - is not the same as drugs CAUSING mental illness...
Just admit you got both things wrong and move on...just like young Baxter should be allowed to...
Timmy, you clearly have not read the law carefully here, I suggested that you do. There is no minimum amount for the offence of possession with intent to supply.
Furthermore, I do not need to research such points, and I can give you chapter and verse if you wish to discuss this further, but this has no place on a football website.
Furthermore, I do not need to research such points, and I can give you chapter and verse if you wish to discuss this further, but this has no place on a football website.
Trying to argue with you, as countless of others have found, is an impossibility as you choose what to interpret, hide behind supposition or accuse others of doing so, and all in all the merrygoround isn't just worth it, as clearly unlike you, I don't have endless amounts of time to argue back and forth, back and forth etc etc etc on a football forum. (Don't you work?!)
You talk about me being wrong yet one of your initial comments in this forum entry (after suggesting that being arrested on a proposed charge possession with intent to supply and possession of counterfiet money was normal teenage behavior) was:
’Don’t talk Bollocks... Passing a joint constitutes intent to supply...
People should really engage their brains before debating something they know nothing about’
Says it all really.
Steve, there is no minimum that is correct, but like Ciaran you have mixed up actual supply with intent to supply. If you pass a joint, in what world is that ’intent’? Intent is an aim, passing an item is clearly not an aim. Intent to supply is normally based on an individual being caught with either an amount of drugs or equipment which leads to the assumption that the person in all likelihood would be looking to supply.
"It seems you also do not understand the word ’causation’...There is empirical evidence to suggest that prolonged use of cannabis might be a potential factor in the development of certain psychological conditions which are already prevailing in the individuals concerned..in much the same way as alcohol is also considered to be a trigger mechanism - this is NOT CAUSATION.
If you going to try and contradict me, at least stick to the point I’m addressing..To state that cannabis ’causes’ mental illness not only shows a fundamental misunderstading of ’cause’ but also ignores that it is simpky one of many underlying factors in the understanding of mental illness.."
Actually Ciaran, ’trigger’ was the EXACT word I used, I never said anything about causation. It seems its you who doesn’t understand the word, or general concept of, causation. Being a trigger for, or contributing factor towards, IS causation. If you think it isn’t you misunderstand more than you realise. There’s nothing in this world where one thing purely causes another with nothing else being involved, and cannabis can have a CAUSAL relationship with mental illness. My cited evidence says the opposite of what you’ve claimed, unless your exact claim is that ’cannabis doesn’t purely cause, entirely on its own with no other contributing factors, mental illness’, which is naively simplistic claim anyway and not one worth contemplating. There is also evidence that ’cannabis psychosis’ which is as close as its possible to get to denying claim, does exist. As for whether these are ’peer-reviewed’ papers or not, that’s a technical point to which I don’t know the answer, what I do know is that they’re taken seriously by credible sources.
If you going to try and contradict me, at least stick to the point I’m addressing..To state that cannabis ’causes’ mental illness not only shows a fundamental misunderstading of ’cause’ but also ignores that it is simpky one of many underlying factors in the understanding of mental illness.."
Actually Ciaran, ’trigger’ was the EXACT word I used, I never said anything about causation. It seems its you who doesn’t understand the word, or general concept of, causation. Being a trigger for, or contributing factor towards, IS causation. If you think it isn’t you misunderstand more than you realise. There’s nothing in this world where one thing purely causes another with nothing else being involved, and cannabis can have a CAUSAL relationship with mental illness. My cited evidence says the opposite of what you’ve claimed, unless your exact claim is that ’cannabis doesn’t purely cause, entirely on its own with no other contributing factors, mental illness’, which is naively simplistic claim anyway and not one worth contemplating. There is also evidence that ’cannabis psychosis’ which is as close as its possible to get to denying claim, does exist. As for whether these are ’peer-reviewed’ papers or not, that’s a technical point to which I don’t know the answer, what I do know is that they’re taken seriously by credible sources.
Timmy, if Jose told the police (in interview) that he had possession of the drugs as he was "minding it for his mate" as people frequently do, then he has admitted that he has an intention to supply the drug, and is therefore guilty of the offence of PWITS.
In law we do not deal with dictionary definitions, and I did not really want to get into this, and I apologise to other readers, but I shall have to quote some law to enlighten Timmy:
The offence is one contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and it states that subject to section 28 of this Act, it is an offence for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, with intent to supply it to another in contravention of section 4(1) of this Act.
’Intent to supply’ has been held to mean an intent on the part of the possessor of the drugs to supply, and not an intention that the drug should be supplied by another person (Greenfield (1983) 78 Cr App R 179).
Now return to my point 1, and explain where I am confused. You are trying to deflect the issue as you were clearly proved wrong in your earlier assertion. For further information I suggest you read, Archbold or Blackstones, or even Stones’.
In law we do not deal with dictionary definitions, and I did not really want to get into this, and I apologise to other readers, but I shall have to quote some law to enlighten Timmy:
The offence is one contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and it states that subject to section 28 of this Act, it is an offence for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, with intent to supply it to another in contravention of section 4(1) of this Act.
’Intent to supply’ has been held to mean an intent on the part of the possessor of the drugs to supply, and not an intention that the drug should be supplied by another person (Greenfield (1983) 78 Cr App R 179).
Now return to my point 1, and explain where I am confused. You are trying to deflect the issue as you were clearly proved wrong in your earlier assertion. For further information I suggest you read, Archbold or Blackstones, or even Stones’.
Ciaran said: "This is the problem with your viewpoint - it makes a connection that is not proven in science..and while you continue to do you will be rightly ridiculed for it.."
I bet you wouldn’t be that cheeky to him in person. What do you mean by ’proven in science’? I’m not sure this is even the type of thing that could be ’proven in science’,(whatever that means) its a sociological and behavioural phenomenon, not a scientific one, and if the guy’s got personal experience of it that beats anything a bunch of PhD students can tell him by taking surveys and having it double marked by a pair of academics.
I’ll repeat a previous request to know how old you are, I’m guessing around 6th formish based on your love for AS Level Critical Thinking terminology, but you have that teenage attitude of thinking that being quite clever means you know everything. You don’t, and you should be more respectful of someone who has got experience in an area you haven’t. The really clever ones are the ones who know how to learn, not show off about how clever they are.
But then that’s not why you argue is it, you argue to WIN!
I bet you wouldn’t be that cheeky to him in person. What do you mean by ’proven in science’? I’m not sure this is even the type of thing that could be ’proven in science’,(whatever that means) its a sociological and behavioural phenomenon, not a scientific one, and if the guy’s got personal experience of it that beats anything a bunch of PhD students can tell him by taking surveys and having it double marked by a pair of academics.
I’ll repeat a previous request to know how old you are, I’m guessing around 6th formish based on your love for AS Level Critical Thinking terminology, but you have that teenage attitude of thinking that being quite clever means you know everything. You don’t, and you should be more respectful of someone who has got experience in an area you haven’t. The really clever ones are the ones who know how to learn, not show off about how clever they are.
But then that’s not why you argue is it, you argue to WIN!
Drugs make you untrustworthy. They turn you into a liar; you'll say anything to get what you want. You'll sell the family silver, you will borrow money that you can't pay back. Make promises you cant keep...
Fuck me, we'd better get Bill booked into the Priory staight away!
Fuck me, we'd better get Bill booked into the Priory staight away!
Jeez, people don’t half get snooty when they’re wrong...
Timmy,
Nice to see you finally admit that amount is irrelevant in regard to ’intent to supply’.
As for Mike, I pulled other contributors on their incorrect use of causation issue, and you jumped up and down... the implication being that you disagreed with the fact that cannabis cannot be considered to cause mental illness per se... a position which you clearly do hold as you’ve now explicitly repeated it.
And guess what — you’re wrong.
Causation is not that hard a concept to get to grips with. Try a bit harder... it’ll come to you eventually.
Timmy,
Nice to see you finally admit that amount is irrelevant in regard to ’intent to supply’.
As for Mike, I pulled other contributors on their incorrect use of causation issue, and you jumped up and down... the implication being that you disagreed with the fact that cannabis cannot be considered to cause mental illness per se... a position which you clearly do hold as you’ve now explicitly repeated it.
And guess what — you’re wrong.
Causation is not that hard a concept to get to grips with. Try a bit harder... it’ll come to you eventually.
Jesus, I thought this was an Everton site and not a forum for arguing about who is right or wrong about the UK’s drug laws.
@ Mike Allison - If you want to know hold old someone is or where they are from quickly just google their name. You’ll find that there are very few Ciaran McGlones in the world...
@ Ciaran - I must admit that I have to agree with Mike here. Most of your posts do not add value to the discussion and instead appear to be aimed at splitting opinion and generating replies. I ignore everything you write nowadays as its always same old, same old. If you can, please lighten up a little and respect other Everton fans’ opinions.
@ Mike Allison - If you want to know hold old someone is or where they are from quickly just google their name. You’ll find that there are very few Ciaran McGlones in the world...
@ Ciaran - I must admit that I have to agree with Mike here. Most of your posts do not add value to the discussion and instead appear to be aimed at splitting opinion and generating replies. I ignore everything you write nowadays as its always same old, same old. If you can, please lighten up a little and respect other Everton fans’ opinions.
Oh and by the way Mike...
Does asking for respect for people and being puerile really sit on the same side of the fence?
Glen....So.
Does asking for respect for people and being puerile really sit on the same side of the fence?
Glen....So.
Steve, as I’ve worked in the legal profession for four years, I don’t need you to tell me that we don't deal in dictionary definitions. I used a dictionary definition because you seemingly didn't understand the difference between supply and an ’intent’ to supply. Now you've quoted relevant case law and you still can’t determine the difference between supply and intent to supply.
The start of your point, number 1) is as follows ’Possession with intent to supply can be the passing of a joint’. Now bearing in mind that there are two different charges on which we are disagreeing in relation to this sentence (i.e intent to supply and supply), I’ll ask you again to confirm. Is ’Passing a joint’ supply or intent to supply? Don’t get offended, but im assuming you're not a qualified criminal solicitor yet, yes?
Ciaran you’ve got to the stage, as you have before, where your replies speak for themselves, I haven’t got a right lot to add as what you do write (and more importantly, what you ignore) display your character far better than anything I can say would.
Please Mike. The fact that you can’t stick to the argument somewhat dilutes you little platitude.
Timmy,
You’ve already proven you didn’t know that ’amounts’ were irrelevant in intent to supply..so I wouldn’t go throwing your legal experience around whenever you’ve been clearly shown to b lacking knowledge on the subject ..
The original quote about ’passing a joint being intent’ - which you are taking great glee in repeating - was actually in reference to refuting the suggestion that someone who was accused of intent was automatically a dealer in terms of fact.
Maybe you should read the proceding comments in order to familiarise yourself with the context in which that comment was made....
Nevermind the fact that I clarified what I meant for the so-called ’experts’ several posts later..
Intent to pass a joint is intent to supply....just to save you going back to the top...which poo poo’s the idea that te charge is specifically reserved for those who are actually ’matter of fact’ dealers..
I’m sure people are getting tired of this - especially now that Mike’s taken the moral high ground...so I’ll bid adieu..
Timmy,
You’ve already proven you didn’t know that ’amounts’ were irrelevant in intent to supply..so I wouldn’t go throwing your legal experience around whenever you’ve been clearly shown to b lacking knowledge on the subject ..
The original quote about ’passing a joint being intent’ - which you are taking great glee in repeating - was actually in reference to refuting the suggestion that someone who was accused of intent was automatically a dealer in terms of fact.
Maybe you should read the proceding comments in order to familiarise yourself with the context in which that comment was made....
Nevermind the fact that I clarified what I meant for the so-called ’experts’ several posts later..
Intent to pass a joint is intent to supply....just to save you going back to the top...which poo poo’s the idea that te charge is specifically reserved for those who are actually ’matter of fact’ dealers..
I’m sure people are getting tired of this - especially now that Mike’s taken the moral high ground...so I’ll bid adieu..
Ahhh... the cultured argument of a finely tuned legal mind... "you’re on the dole"...
This rather funny piece might interest you, Mike... it seems you have some American bedfellows who share your opinion of causation...
http://obereed.net/hh/correlation.html
Enjoy.
This rather funny piece might interest you, Mike... it seems you have some American bedfellows who share your opinion of causation...
http://obereed.net/hh/correlation.html
Enjoy.
Timmy, what does it matter whether I’m legally qualified or not? You mention whether or not I’m a fully qualified solicitor so I will assume that is your chosen profession. I will also assume that ToffeeWeb has made you log in under your real name. If so, you are NOT a solicitor as you are not on the roll. If you are a solicitor, then you will know where to check this and also how many years qualified you are. If you are so concerned, check me out. This is my real name, though my Christian name is actually Stephen.
And maybe if I am a proper courtroom lawyer, dealing with things like this, day-in and day-out, then perhaps I will be mentioned in various papers, publications and on websites, with quotations of what I have said in court? Funnily enough, no mention of the great Timmy Mongiat.
It takes three years of university, one year of post graduate college (or law school as we used to call it) and then two years of articles (or training contract as you call it now) before you are even allowed anywhere near a court room.
Let’s assume you're four years within the profession, if this is your chosen route does not refer to your academic years but solely your practical aspects, then you have 2 years qualification at most. The fact that you say you're working the profession leads me to believe you are not even articled, but are a standard clerk, police representative or even an office junior.
Let’s remember the purpose of this little teté á teté, you stated, which you now accept was incorrect, that you need a minimum amount of cannabis in order to be charged with possession with intent to supply. Gracefully, although you could do nothing else, you have accepted you are wrong, but instead of just holding your hand up, you instead try to carry on the argument on another front.
I don’t know why you keep banging on about supply, the lad was not arrested for supply, hardly anyone ever is, the issue is possession with intent to supply, and the fact is this:
IF JOSE HAD ONE JOINT AND INTENDED TO PASS IT TO HIS MATE THEN THAT IS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SUPPLY.
Don’t talk stupid Brian.
He’s a 17-year-old lad who has got in with a bad crowd and made a mistake.
A police caution is probably all any first time offender would get for this. So why would it make him feel above the law... if it’s the same as everyone?
My point was that rather than letting this end his Everton career, let's hope it acts as a warning and gets him to sort himself out — maybe start hanging round with that nice Jack lad outside of school.
He’s a 17-year-old lad who has got in with a bad crowd and made a mistake.
A police caution is probably all any first time offender would get for this. So why would it make him feel above the law... if it’s the same as everyone?
My point was that rather than letting this end his Everton career, let's hope it acts as a warning and gets him to sort himself out — maybe start hanging round with that nice Jack lad outside of school.
That’s interesting Steve...
An extra years postgrad before your training contract....Here the 2 year training contract is concurent with two years at the Institute of legal studies...
An extra years postgrad before your training contract....Here the 2 year training contract is concurent with two years at the Institute of legal studies...
QUOTE a certain Mr McGlone...
Jamie,
The majority of your post referred to problems with hard drugs after making a casual and causal link from soft drugs to the more destructive narcotics...
This is the problem with your viewpoint - it makes a connection that is not proven in science..and while you continue to do you will be rightly ridiculed for it..
This is not an argument about hard drugs..it’s not even an argument about soft drugs - it’s an argument about whether 17 year olds, or anybody for that matter - should be allowed to make mistakes without being consigned to the dustbin of society. I solemnly believe your hardened position creates more problems than it solves..and I’m surprised that someone with a C.V such as yours is so intransient to the vagaries of life...
-----------------------------------------------------
What a load of old rubbish... Scientific?
Please — there is no scientific link because this is not something that can be analysed in a laboratory or from sheets of paper by some PhD student looking for a break through in SCIENCE!
There is a link between soft and hard drugs — and that's that — no argument, no quibble — there's a link and that's it. I can put a lot of people in front of you — all addicts of class A drugs and everyone will tell you a story of how they started... and it goes something like "just started smokin' a bit of weed with me mates..."
to suggest that there is no link is as stupid as any suggestion ever made on this website.
Dealers are scum — they are vultures that prey on the weakened minds of those with addicitive behaviour and personalities. Worse still, they prey on the impressionable.
If Baxter is not directly involved, then the two other morons have probably impressed him because they are dealing and earning... without working... etc.etc.
How do I know this... BECAUSE I SEE IT REGULARLY — end of. I’m not entertaining this any more because all you do is pick at one or two sentences and criticise them without fully understanding the rest of the post.
Jamie,
The majority of your post referred to problems with hard drugs after making a casual and causal link from soft drugs to the more destructive narcotics...
This is the problem with your viewpoint - it makes a connection that is not proven in science..and while you continue to do you will be rightly ridiculed for it..
This is not an argument about hard drugs..it’s not even an argument about soft drugs - it’s an argument about whether 17 year olds, or anybody for that matter - should be allowed to make mistakes without being consigned to the dustbin of society. I solemnly believe your hardened position creates more problems than it solves..and I’m surprised that someone with a C.V such as yours is so intransient to the vagaries of life...
-----------------------------------------------------
What a load of old rubbish... Scientific?
Please — there is no scientific link because this is not something that can be analysed in a laboratory or from sheets of paper by some PhD student looking for a break through in SCIENCE!
There is a link between soft and hard drugs — and that's that — no argument, no quibble — there's a link and that's it. I can put a lot of people in front of you — all addicts of class A drugs and everyone will tell you a story of how they started... and it goes something like "just started smokin' a bit of weed with me mates..."
to suggest that there is no link is as stupid as any suggestion ever made on this website.
Dealers are scum — they are vultures that prey on the weakened minds of those with addicitive behaviour and personalities. Worse still, they prey on the impressionable.
If Baxter is not directly involved, then the two other morons have probably impressed him because they are dealing and earning... without working... etc.etc.
How do I know this... BECAUSE I SEE IT REGULARLY — end of. I’m not entertaining this any more because all you do is pick at one or two sentences and criticise them without fully understanding the rest of the post.
Ah Jamie, Jamie... Jamie,
Just because you don’t understand scientific doctrine, empiricism and evidence — doesn’t mean you can replace it with correlation and emotive hearsay... The fact that you think all science is carried out in a lab — just about shows your ignorance of the concepts you’re dismissing.
Those ’one or two sentences’ as you call them... are extremely fundamental concepts which completely change the argument from one of ’linkage’ or correlation — to one of causal physcial progression between narcotics — a somewhat gigantic leap.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the implications of using this incorrect terminology....
Gateway theory and causation between hard and soft drugs is not proven — It is simply a correlation — no matter how many stories of you present of people taking a ’few puffs’ first...
In fact, your posts remind me of the propaganda films produced for mass consumption in 1930s America..
Reefer madness anyone?
Just because you don’t understand scientific doctrine, empiricism and evidence — doesn’t mean you can replace it with correlation and emotive hearsay... The fact that you think all science is carried out in a lab — just about shows your ignorance of the concepts you’re dismissing.
Those ’one or two sentences’ as you call them... are extremely fundamental concepts which completely change the argument from one of ’linkage’ or correlation — to one of causal physcial progression between narcotics — a somewhat gigantic leap.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the implications of using this incorrect terminology....
Gateway theory and causation between hard and soft drugs is not proven — It is simply a correlation — no matter how many stories of you present of people taking a ’few puffs’ first...
In fact, your posts remind me of the propaganda films produced for mass consumption in 1930s America..
Reefer madness anyone?
The link is that dealers sell all types of drug. Therefore people are exposed to hard drugs by default. If you had the Dutch model this would not happen.
Pot is not a gateway drug, and I am living proof, having used it on daily basis for over 30 years, and have never tried any hard class A drug. As an aside, how many of the addicts also drink alcohol, is this therefore a gateway? Of course not.
And in case anyone is wondering, I own my own business, have never been involved in organised crime, guns etc, and am only breaking the law because of where I live. If I were to live in another country, pot would be legal and alcohol banned. All those people who believe it to be "against the law for a reason" need to wake up, and ask themselves if they agree with all aspects of the law or not.
To be fair and balanced, Bernie, your position is also anecdoctal...
But your position is supported by the major pieces of scientific work on the issue. Jamie’s is not...
But your position is supported by the major pieces of scientific work on the issue. Jamie’s is not...
Drugs on ToffeeWeb. Far out.
I wonder if the Cocky Watchman has an internet connection where he is right now? If he wants to pass a bit of time perhaps he could make his way over to TW and add his thoughts to this subject.
One million quids worth of weed, eh. Now THAT’S intent.
According to the news (so it must be true) he seemed to take the view that importing a bit of puff (from Amsterdam I think it was) was just a ’gateway’, an amuse-bouche if you will, to resurrecting his career.
In the words of Nancy. Just Say No.
I wonder if the Cocky Watchman has an internet connection where he is right now? If he wants to pass a bit of time perhaps he could make his way over to TW and add his thoughts to this subject.
One million quids worth of weed, eh. Now THAT’S intent.
According to the news (so it must be true) he seemed to take the view that importing a bit of puff (from Amsterdam I think it was) was just a ’gateway’, an amuse-bouche if you will, to resurrecting his career.
In the words of Nancy. Just Say No.
Ciaran, will you give it a rest.
Firstly...science. I would like to point out at this stage that should you wish to question my academic ability then please call Prof T. Downing from Manchester University. He will, after reading some of these response, verify my qualifications to you. For example, science in a lab...obviously not all science - darwinian theory, theory of relativity, atomic absorption, etc.
All you seem to do is pick out points that you think you can counter attack (yes attack).
While ’gateway theory’ is unproven - so to is the big bang theory, yet it is widely accepted amongst the scientific community. So just because there is yet to be evidence to prove the theory (and here is some science for you - evidence has to prove the theory beyond all doubt - i.e. scientific proof for dependent and independent testing has to exist) does not mean that there is no relation other than correlation - which in itself is absurd.
God forbid Ciaran that you are ever in a position of power because clearly you think that you are always right and that experience counts for nothing because some internet site somewhere told you that correlation doesn’t count.
Meet me - Attend an NA session (or AA session) as an observer. Attend an Al-anon meeting to see the misery for yourself and ask your questions there - you will, i’m afraid, eat your words.
On to Alcohol. There is little that any of us can do about alcohol. Its another major, major problem in society and it too has devastating effects...problem with alcohol is that it is legally owned and therefore nobody can be arrested for possessing it (unless in a public place in town!).
IF you ask do i drink...then the answer is yes. I’m not an alcoholic but i certainly enjoy a drink like the many others do - i dont, fortunately, have an addictive personality and can enjoy my vices in moderation.
You may feel that this is hypocritical of me but then you haven’t read what I have written...I am not aiming my frustrations at drug users - I am aiming them at the dealers. My involvement here was to the effect that three people, one of whom represents my club, have been arrested for intent to supply. I aim my frustrations at them - if indeed guilty.
For what its worth I also aim my frustrations at companies with slogans like ’making life richer for the pourer’...
Firstly...science. I would like to point out at this stage that should you wish to question my academic ability then please call Prof T. Downing from Manchester University. He will, after reading some of these response, verify my qualifications to you. For example, science in a lab...obviously not all science - darwinian theory, theory of relativity, atomic absorption, etc.
All you seem to do is pick out points that you think you can counter attack (yes attack).
While ’gateway theory’ is unproven - so to is the big bang theory, yet it is widely accepted amongst the scientific community. So just because there is yet to be evidence to prove the theory (and here is some science for you - evidence has to prove the theory beyond all doubt - i.e. scientific proof for dependent and independent testing has to exist) does not mean that there is no relation other than correlation - which in itself is absurd.
God forbid Ciaran that you are ever in a position of power because clearly you think that you are always right and that experience counts for nothing because some internet site somewhere told you that correlation doesn’t count.
Meet me - Attend an NA session (or AA session) as an observer. Attend an Al-anon meeting to see the misery for yourself and ask your questions there - you will, i’m afraid, eat your words.
On to Alcohol. There is little that any of us can do about alcohol. Its another major, major problem in society and it too has devastating effects...problem with alcohol is that it is legally owned and therefore nobody can be arrested for possessing it (unless in a public place in town!).
IF you ask do i drink...then the answer is yes. I’m not an alcoholic but i certainly enjoy a drink like the many others do - i dont, fortunately, have an addictive personality and can enjoy my vices in moderation.
You may feel that this is hypocritical of me but then you haven’t read what I have written...I am not aiming my frustrations at drug users - I am aiming them at the dealers. My involvement here was to the effect that three people, one of whom represents my club, have been arrested for intent to supply. I aim my frustrations at them - if indeed guilty.
For what its worth I also aim my frustrations at companies with slogans like ’making life richer for the pourer’...
Bernie — no I don't agree with all aspects of the law...
like declassifying and then reclassifying cannabis — for what difference in reasoning? The evidence of mental health issues has been around for a long time.
Alcohol should be more strictly controlled — allowing pubs etc to apply for licences for extended hours etc is ludicrous given the problems that UK has with addicts, let alone the stuff that the police have to deal with.
Drug Dealers should be dealt with more stringently.
like declassifying and then reclassifying cannabis — for what difference in reasoning? The evidence of mental health issues has been around for a long time.
Alcohol should be more strictly controlled — allowing pubs etc to apply for licences for extended hours etc is ludicrous given the problems that UK has with addicts, let alone the stuff that the police have to deal with.
Drug Dealers should be dealt with more stringently.
Ha, those propaganda films are mental!
In fairness you can make a correlation between almost anything, Jamie. For example the number of street lights to the number of alleged UFO abductions... it does not mean however that should you live on a street without lights that you are going to be abducted by aliens.
Perhaps we should stop the sale of sweets to anyone other a certain age in case they’re a paedo. Or perhaps people could chuck bricks through my windows because my girlfriend’s a paediatric nurse. (Even if that seems more urban myth than fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2006/jun/22/truthamovingtargetjournali
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm)
In fairness you can make a correlation between almost anything, Jamie. For example the number of street lights to the number of alleged UFO abductions... it does not mean however that should you live on a street without lights that you are going to be abducted by aliens.
Perhaps we should stop the sale of sweets to anyone other a certain age in case they’re a paedo. Or perhaps people could chuck bricks through my windows because my girlfriend’s a paediatric nurse. (Even if that seems more urban myth than fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2006/jun/22/truthamovingtargetjournali
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm)
God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
Clearly I should pay more attention to this because I can’t change the baffling expertise that's spouted on this site!
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
Clearly I should pay more attention to this because I can’t change the baffling expertise that's spouted on this site!
Right Jamie,
So while ’gateway theory’ remains ’unproven’- can you please stop perpetuating it as a matter of fact - or did your Prof not teach you that...
Oh and by the way, the difference between big bang theory and gateway theory is that the former is not falsifiable, and is generally accepted... ’gateway’ is falsifiable and is not generally accepted because the available empirical evidence contradicts it..
So while ’gateway theory’ remains ’unproven’- can you please stop perpetuating it as a matter of fact - or did your Prof not teach you that...
Oh and by the way, the difference between big bang theory and gateway theory is that the former is not falsifiable, and is generally accepted... ’gateway’ is falsifiable and is not generally accepted because the available empirical evidence contradicts it..
Which empircal evidence is that? Can you forward it to me...? If so, I’ll happily pass on my contact details and we can discuss this away from an Everton forum. I’m frankly sick of discussing it when you seem to put your trust in Google searches.
You mean you haven’t actually read the papers on gateway theory?
And you claim to be a professional working in the industry? And you are purporting yourself as some kind of expert?
Well, I’m astounded... Why don’t you start with RAND corp’s work and follow the references...
As for your reference to me using ’Google’... I thought it would’ve been quite obvious to you by now that I’m not dragging this stuff from google... Maybe you should stop thinking you’re the expert here and open yourself up to the possibility that I know what I’m talking about...
You never know, you might learn something...although the fact that you’re engaging in this debate and making factual claims about gateway — without actually having read the literature — suggests otherwise..
And you claim to be a professional working in the industry? And you are purporting yourself as some kind of expert?
Well, I’m astounded... Why don’t you start with RAND corp’s work and follow the references...
As for your reference to me using ’Google’... I thought it would’ve been quite obvious to you by now that I’m not dragging this stuff from google... Maybe you should stop thinking you’re the expert here and open yourself up to the possibility that I know what I’m talking about...
You never know, you might learn something...although the fact that you’re engaging in this debate and making factual claims about gateway — without actually having read the literature — suggests otherwise..
I have been following this thread for a few days now, with some interest. So here goes...
Ciaran,
If you want to see evidence of cannabis and its detriments, as both a gateway drug and its link to mental illness, then you should look no further than most inner city psychiatric wards. These days we are not talking about a bit of puff. The strains of cannabis are getting stronger. They are being genetically modified all the time.
Products like super skunk are readilly available on the streets and are a powerful hallucinogenic, given to someone who is pre-disposed to mental illness (without them knowing) is like holding a loaded gun to your head and in some cases is a life sentence.
The brain is a very delicate organ and if messed with, in some cases, the damage can be irreversible. This is something I work with on a daily basis, without going into too much detail, 18 years as a psychiatric nurse, the last 5 as a community based nurse. I am also qualified as a nurse prescriber and have to know how drugs affect the body and how they interact with other drugs.
Trigger and causation are only words to describe theories; some adhere to them, some don’t. Bottom line is: anything that artificially fucks about with the brain chemistry, if used on a regular basis, will have a detrimental effect upon the brain sooner or later. For some poor sods, it’s sooner and more prominent.
Jamie don’t bother! You’ve spoken more sense in one thread than Ciaran has in his entire ’ToffeeWeb career’. The very fact that he thinks he can tell you, someone experienced at working with addicts, what’s what on this subject because of what he’s read in books tells you everything you need to know.
Ciaran’s young, he’s got a lot to learn, and he’s got too much time on his hands.
Ciaran, you seem to want to set a load of rules as to what counts and what doesn’t. I’m afraid Jamie’s experience, and his anecdotal evidence, counts far more than anything you’ve read anywhere. In fact I’ll be technical with you, go back to your critical thinking textbook, you seem to want the entire argument to be one of deductive logic, I’m afraid it isn’t.
Ciaran’s young, he’s got a lot to learn, and he’s got too much time on his hands.
Ciaran, you seem to want to set a load of rules as to what counts and what doesn’t. I’m afraid Jamie’s experience, and his anecdotal evidence, counts far more than anything you’ve read anywhere. In fact I’ll be technical with you, go back to your critical thinking textbook, you seem to want the entire argument to be one of deductive logic, I’m afraid it isn’t.
As with most things in life, its a case of inductive force, where we can take the opinion of the expert over that of the layman, just because. Forget what chapter 5 says about ’arguing from authority’ as when it comes to most arguments, I’m afraid it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The only thing you can say is that its POSSIBLE that Jamie is completely wrong and all his experience is a-typical, the rest of us will assume that that’s pretty unlikely.
As for you telling me about causation, get a grip son. I’ve dealt with this in a previous post already so putting up some link to a bizarre survey in America that you’ve bothered looking up means nothing. I’ll repeat my advice of before, genuinely clever people take every opportunity to learn from others, not show off about how clever they are.
People have always got to learn Mike... And that includes me...
But unfortunately on this occasion you and the gateway theorists are wrong... and not only that, you don’t seem to have read any of the literature or appreciate any of the rather fundamental scientific concepts being put before you... You’d rather defer to anecdotal evidence. Sorry, but I and most of scientific debate prefer empiricism... as opposed to ’your rest of us’.
ps: Persisting with "he’s young" line, not only shows a lack of creativity, but also augments the fact that you’ve no argument. But I suppose that’s what happens when you are more interested in disagreeing with the person, rather than the argument. A very mature approach to what I consider a vey important debate.
But unfortunately on this occasion you and the gateway theorists are wrong... and not only that, you don’t seem to have read any of the literature or appreciate any of the rather fundamental scientific concepts being put before you... You’d rather defer to anecdotal evidence. Sorry, but I and most of scientific debate prefer empiricism... as opposed to ’your rest of us’.
ps: Persisting with "he’s young" line, not only shows a lack of creativity, but also augments the fact that you’ve no argument. But I suppose that’s what happens when you are more interested in disagreeing with the person, rather than the argument. A very mature approach to what I consider a vey important debate.
P.P.S Mike that document I posted is not a survey — it’s a piss take of your innability to distinguish between causation and corellation...
As for you advice about ’genuinely clever people’ - I’ve seen nothing to suggest you’re qualified to give any such advice. In fact, your platitudes are laughably hypocritical - given your tendency to gravitate towards the ’Listen to me son, I know better’.
You’ve ’dealt’ with causation?.... yeah, with obvious deficiency.
As for you advice about ’genuinely clever people’ - I’ve seen nothing to suggest you’re qualified to give any such advice. In fact, your platitudes are laughably hypocritical - given your tendency to gravitate towards the ’Listen to me son, I know better’.
You’ve ’dealt’ with causation?.... yeah, with obvious deficiency.
Dave Lynch,
I respect that you’ve seen and obviously dealt with the effects of cannabis — but that is a far cry from proving gateway or causation.
The terms you dismiss are rather important — as we’ve seen here — mis-use of the specifics can result in misinformed opinion...
I respect that you’ve seen and obviously dealt with the effects of cannabis — but that is a far cry from proving gateway or causation.
The terms you dismiss are rather important — as we’ve seen here — mis-use of the specifics can result in misinformed opinion...
Ciaran, I am not dismissing anything. I said. "Some adhere to them, some don’t." — That is not a dismissal, it is an acknowledgement that both have relevance.
For instance, does the use of cannabis cause the brain to trigger psychosis? Or does the use of cannabis trigger the cause of psychosis.
I could go on all night about seretonin and dopamine receptors and the effect cannabis has upon them, but that would serve no cause mate. The same goes for the gateway theory, some adhere to it. Some don’t. Both have some credence.
Hmm, okay...
1. I’m not trying to be ’creative’, and I’m not trying to disagree with you personally (although your style IS disagreeable) but some of your arguments which, if expressed normally would be easy enough to disagree with, but when you tell an experienced volunteer with drug addicts that he’s wrong and will be ’rightly ridiculed’ start to become rude and offensive. I repeat, I bet you wouldn’t talk that way to his face so why do it online?
2. You speak with a bizarre authority about something no-one claims to know the answer to, namely ’gateway theory’. Again, I repeat (I seem to have to do that a lot with you) ’gateway theory’ simply isn’t a scientific concept, so it won’t have ’scientific proof’, that's a basic category error. It's a behavioural/psychological/sociological one, for which anecdotal evidence, collected in large enough quantities, is vital.
3. About causation (I repeat...) you don’t seem to understand it. You talk as if A causes B and B causes C and so on. This simply isn’t the way things work in the world. At the furthest extreme you can say that everything that’s ever happened ’causes’ everything else that happens after it. Somewhere in the middle is something that makes sense along the lines of ’where Z is an event (such as an individual’s psychotic episode) there are causal factors A, B, C, D, E and F. Where one of those is cannabis use then it is perfectly fair to talk of ’causation’. It might be sloppy to in that case say ’cannabis use causes psychotic episodes’ but its not ’wrong’ as such. It's better and tighter language to say it's a ’causal factor’, ’contributing factor’ or maybe ’trigger’ but for you to come on here and tell me I’m wrong about causation does show a ridiculous arrogance that points to your youth and makes it a relevant factor in the discussion (to be honest, it's doing you a favour because for a grown man to write the way you do would be pathetic rather than anything else). I hope this doesn’t constitute ’obvious deficiency’.
4. I didn’t read the document you posted, I saw ’causation is correlation’ and didn’t think it was relevant to anything I’d said. If you think it was you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.
5. As far as I’m concerned I haven’t offered you any platitudes.
6. I’ve met loads of genuinely clever people.
1. I’m not trying to be ’creative’, and I’m not trying to disagree with you personally (although your style IS disagreeable) but some of your arguments which, if expressed normally would be easy enough to disagree with, but when you tell an experienced volunteer with drug addicts that he’s wrong and will be ’rightly ridiculed’ start to become rude and offensive. I repeat, I bet you wouldn’t talk that way to his face so why do it online?
2. You speak with a bizarre authority about something no-one claims to know the answer to, namely ’gateway theory’. Again, I repeat (I seem to have to do that a lot with you) ’gateway theory’ simply isn’t a scientific concept, so it won’t have ’scientific proof’, that's a basic category error. It's a behavioural/psychological/sociological one, for which anecdotal evidence, collected in large enough quantities, is vital.
3. About causation (I repeat...) you don’t seem to understand it. You talk as if A causes B and B causes C and so on. This simply isn’t the way things work in the world. At the furthest extreme you can say that everything that’s ever happened ’causes’ everything else that happens after it. Somewhere in the middle is something that makes sense along the lines of ’where Z is an event (such as an individual’s psychotic episode) there are causal factors A, B, C, D, E and F. Where one of those is cannabis use then it is perfectly fair to talk of ’causation’. It might be sloppy to in that case say ’cannabis use causes psychotic episodes’ but its not ’wrong’ as such. It's better and tighter language to say it's a ’causal factor’, ’contributing factor’ or maybe ’trigger’ but for you to come on here and tell me I’m wrong about causation does show a ridiculous arrogance that points to your youth and makes it a relevant factor in the discussion (to be honest, it's doing you a favour because for a grown man to write the way you do would be pathetic rather than anything else). I hope this doesn’t constitute ’obvious deficiency’.
4. I didn’t read the document you posted, I saw ’causation is correlation’ and didn’t think it was relevant to anything I’d said. If you think it was you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.
5. As far as I’m concerned I haven’t offered you any platitudes.
6. I’ve met loads of genuinely clever people.
You know what, Mike. There really is no need to repeat your position.... I get it... it's up above in black and white...
You think that anecdotal evidence trumps peer reviewed scientific studies and that published material is inferior against such opinion... (what have you got against books?).
You also think someone who is trained to council or care is actually qualified to make judgements on problems which really require scientific analysis... even though these so-called unqualified ’experts’ you endorse as a superior authority only see the subjective negative side of the debate — by virtue of the fact that they only deal with problematic cases...
You also have a problem with my objection to these ’experts’ emotively refering to causation and gateway theory as if it is some kind of fact... and you think the well founded scientific maxim of ’causation’ can be validly used even though there is no evidence of it.
Oh ...and you also think I’m a sixth-form arrogant twat who really should concede to your opinion — irrespective of the fact that you have no idea of my background...
Did I miss anything Mike?
Dave Lynch, You are right of course — some people disagree with it and some agree... the difference is that the majority of scientific evidence supports those who do not agree with it... with all due respect... do you really think your personal experience of the negative side of the problem is enough to objectively dismiss this evidence?
You think that anecdotal evidence trumps peer reviewed scientific studies and that published material is inferior against such opinion... (what have you got against books?).
You also think someone who is trained to council or care is actually qualified to make judgements on problems which really require scientific analysis... even though these so-called unqualified ’experts’ you endorse as a superior authority only see the subjective negative side of the debate — by virtue of the fact that they only deal with problematic cases...
You also have a problem with my objection to these ’experts’ emotively refering to causation and gateway theory as if it is some kind of fact... and you think the well founded scientific maxim of ’causation’ can be validly used even though there is no evidence of it.
Oh ...and you also think I’m a sixth-form arrogant twat who really should concede to your opinion — irrespective of the fact that you have no idea of my background...
Did I miss anything Mike?
Dave Lynch, You are right of course — some people disagree with it and some agree... the difference is that the majority of scientific evidence supports those who do not agree with it... with all due respect... do you really think your personal experience of the negative side of the problem is enough to objectively dismiss this evidence?
Well you say you get it, then you write things that suggest you don’t.
It's also not the case that I believe you should necessarily ’concede’ to my opinion, but at least understand it and accept its merits.
And yes, I definitely have a problem with your objection, because these guys have experience that gateway theory is, literally, ’some kind of fact’. You’ve actually phrased that perfectly. If you’re not happy with that, or you don’t get what I mean, then it would take too long to explain it to you, but gateway theory, particularly as witnessed in the real life cases of individuals who describe their progression from one drug to another, absolutely IS ’some kind of fact’. If you don’t accept that, then you have a limited and narrow understanding of the word ’fact’ to go along with your simplistic and naive view of the relationship ’science’ has to sociological/behavioural/psychological phenomena.
As for your background, I’d be happy to be enlightened, I can only say what impression I’ve formed through conversing with you on this website.
It's also not the case that I believe you should necessarily ’concede’ to my opinion, but at least understand it and accept its merits.
And yes, I definitely have a problem with your objection, because these guys have experience that gateway theory is, literally, ’some kind of fact’. You’ve actually phrased that perfectly. If you’re not happy with that, or you don’t get what I mean, then it would take too long to explain it to you, but gateway theory, particularly as witnessed in the real life cases of individuals who describe their progression from one drug to another, absolutely IS ’some kind of fact’. If you don’t accept that, then you have a limited and narrow understanding of the word ’fact’ to go along with your simplistic and naive view of the relationship ’science’ has to sociological/behavioural/psychological phenomena.
As for your background, I’d be happy to be enlightened, I can only say what impression I’ve formed through conversing with you on this website.
Ciaran, Please read carefully what I have written mate.
"I am Not dismissing anything."
"Both have some credence."
In my line of work, you have to have an open mind and be adaptable. To dismiss any theoretical opinion, evidence based of not serves only to close your mind to the needs of the individual.
"I am Not dismissing anything."
"Both have some credence."
In my line of work, you have to have an open mind and be adaptable. To dismiss any theoretical opinion, evidence based of not serves only to close your mind to the needs of the individual.
Oh, by the way Mike... I love the idea that sociology and psychology are not sciences, or that the possible effect of THC or CBDs on the brain in terms of causing mental illness or causing progression to other narcotics is not a matter for scientific investigation.
I'm sure many doctors and research scientists would be very interested in your single-handed writing of the scientific doctrine. Stick to scholastic philosophy mate... because you know little about science.
I'm sure many doctors and research scientists would be very interested in your single-handed writing of the scientific doctrine. Stick to scholastic philosophy mate... because you know little about science.
’Well you say you get it, then you write things that suggest you don’t’
-----------------------------
Feel free to correct me If I’ve mispresented your position...
Oh, by the way, I loved the bit where you admitted to being sloppy (ie, wrong) about causation... then called me arrogant for having the insolence to call you wrong (and accusing you of being wrong somehow makes me a child) ... You aren’t a teacher by any chance?
-----------------------------
Feel free to correct me If I’ve mispresented your position...
Oh, by the way, I loved the bit where you admitted to being sloppy (ie, wrong) about causation... then called me arrogant for having the insolence to call you wrong (and accusing you of being wrong somehow makes me a child) ... You aren’t a teacher by any chance?
’2. You speak with a bizarre authority about something no-one claims to know the answer to, namely ’gateway theory’
-----------------------------
Wow... straw man arguments as well now... and there was me thinking that you were the one defending the misappropriation of this theory as fact.... Therefore advocating your own authority...
-----------------------------
Wow... straw man arguments as well now... and there was me thinking that you were the one defending the misappropriation of this theory as fact.... Therefore advocating your own authority...
Oh well. I tried.
Yes, I am a teacher by the way.
Yes, I am a teacher by the way.
Certainly not a biology, chemistry, physics or sociology teacher...
What bothers me most about this gateway theory is this: Most addicts of Class A drugs started out by smoking pot; this I accept, therefore the theory looks sound. However, most pot smokers do not end up addicts, this therefore also provides numerous examples of anecdotal evidence against the theory.
Jamie touched on the real reason people become addicts I believe, when he mentioned addictive personality. It is to do with the person, not the substances they use.
I also totally agree with harsh penalties for drug pushers, I just don't include cannabis in that. Whilst I agree the stuff available now is very much stronger than it was when I was younger, this only re-inforces my believe in licencing it.
Bernie, Anecdotal evidence from the other side is clearly inadmissable.
Oh and just to clear something up... Skunk is a relatively average form of cannabis, and is simply a trademark banner from the mid 90s that occured by lumping all forms available in the together... most of them aren’t skunks. It’s like calling vaccums 'Hoovers'... simply branding.
And cannabis has not been genetically modified in the true sense of GM; it has been selectively bred for certain strains to contain variable amounts of THC and CBD, as a combination of these chemicals in differing proportions gives the cannabis different effects. Most of the strongest varieties are North African and Asian and have not changed since their evolutionary appearance.
Oh and just to clear something up... Skunk is a relatively average form of cannabis, and is simply a trademark banner from the mid 90s that occured by lumping all forms available in the together... most of them aren’t skunks. It’s like calling vaccums 'Hoovers'... simply branding.
And cannabis has not been genetically modified in the true sense of GM; it has been selectively bred for certain strains to contain variable amounts of THC and CBD, as a combination of these chemicals in differing proportions gives the cannabis different effects. Most of the strongest varieties are North African and Asian and have not changed since their evolutionary appearance.
Saying that strength has increased is simply a myth... what has changed, however, is widespread availability in the UK to stronger strains (as Bernie says — availability)... mostly due to the fact that people have realised that it’s easy to grow and that the seeds of high strength strains are available over the net...
True Bernie, but other factors such as labelling a person — including dealers, addicts, shop lifters — without looking into why they have found themselves in that situation also lets situations spiral out of control.
To say that "dealers sell all types of drug" is a bit like saying that the French are arrogant, an addict will never change, that "soft" drugs lead on to hard drugs and that recreational drug users will become dependent.
This whole thread has blown up over semantics, sweeping statements and whether anecdotal first/second hand evidence is better than academic/scientific theory. How can labelling someone arrogant before dismissing what they’re saying because of their age be constructive (however condescending their tone may be)?
It worries me that some of the people working with addicts are happy to label others as basically scum. While I would generally always side with those who are in the field rather than those reading from a study, Ciaran’s right, that those on the front line are going to see the worst cases rather than a more holistic sample. It still does not mean that their experiences should be dismissed... otherwise you end up with systems which in theory should work but in practice fail, which is bad for everyone involved be they an addict, councillor, nurse or French.
To say that "dealers sell all types of drug" is a bit like saying that the French are arrogant, an addict will never change, that "soft" drugs lead on to hard drugs and that recreational drug users will become dependent.
This whole thread has blown up over semantics, sweeping statements and whether anecdotal first/second hand evidence is better than academic/scientific theory. How can labelling someone arrogant before dismissing what they’re saying because of their age be constructive (however condescending their tone may be)?
It worries me that some of the people working with addicts are happy to label others as basically scum. While I would generally always side with those who are in the field rather than those reading from a study, Ciaran’s right, that those on the front line are going to see the worst cases rather than a more holistic sample. It still does not mean that their experiences should be dismissed... otherwise you end up with systems which in theory should work but in practice fail, which is bad for everyone involved be they an addict, councillor, nurse or French.
Your honour...
I was only being condescending because so-called experts (and their workers) were denying the basic facts of a field they claim to have expertise... purporting gateway theory or causation in mental illness as a fact — is simply wrong.
Requesting that the correct terminology be used is not an insult to experience in the field... simply a matter of not providing misinformation.
As for the age thing... typical teacher... doesn’t like being contradicted. I’d love to know what age he is... I’d say about 27. Not that it matters of course...
I was only being condescending because so-called experts (and their workers) were denying the basic facts of a field they claim to have expertise... purporting gateway theory or causation in mental illness as a fact — is simply wrong.
Requesting that the correct terminology be used is not an insult to experience in the field... simply a matter of not providing misinformation.
As for the age thing... typical teacher... doesn’t like being contradicted. I’d love to know what age he is... I’d say about 27. Not that it matters of course...
By the way... I think this is a debate that wider society should have had a long time ago.
But then again, politicians rarely do honest public debate — in fact just look at the whole reclassification issue... They ignored there own committee of advisors, including some prominent academics and field workers on the issue.
Well thought out? As if...
But then again, politicians rarely do honest public debate — in fact just look at the whole reclassification issue... They ignored there own committee of advisors, including some prominent academics and field workers on the issue.
Well thought out? As if...
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 06/10/2009 at 07:27:35
Report abuse