The Dew Drop Inn Virtual HEC Final Rugby Pub, Twickenham

First topic message reminder :

Chin chin and welcome to the Virtual Rugby Pub - a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat. The pub has arrived in London this week for the Heineken Cup final so has stocked up on cucumber sandwiches ( - KRD ) and Pimms.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no defacing the pictures of Ruan Pienaar, Stephen Ferris, Jonathon Sexton, Rob Kearney and Jonny Wilkinson (the five nominees for the ERC Player of the Year award), Nigel Owens the HEC final referee or Adam Powell (captain of Llanelli RFC who are playing Ponty in the Welsh club final on Friday). The CCTV snaps of Prop_Lyd and the other Cardiff Saracens players on tour in Croatia are fair game though.



Old Pub: https://www.606v2.com/t28922p950-barrel-s-dew-drop-inn-virtual-rugby-pub-restaurant-luderitz#1218292

But that is like objecting to someone saying that bombs kill.

Some people will be involved in an explosion and not die. That doesn't negate the fact that bombs kill.

The message needs to be impactful as even one person dying due to drugs is too many luckless.

Drugs Kill is far more imapactful than Drugs can kill.

It's not like saying 'bombs kill' at all, Mrs P. A bomb is designed to kill.

Ozzy, if these two girls haadn't got behind the wheel of a car, they wouldn't have died. Do we then proclaim, 'Cars Kill'?

A car can be driven safely by somebody who has passed a test. Any drug taken by any person at any time has the ability to kill, be that directly by prompting an adverse reaction and shutting vital organs down, or by altering mental state and making the person who has taken it do things that are patently unsafe and put theirs and others lives at risk.

There is no comparison to be made between the acts of driving a car and taking drugs.

Is that an important difference?

The person is just as dead no matter the intent.

I suspect that Ozzy and I, through work, have had the misfortune to being exposed to the real, sordid, wasteful, destructive consequences or these things and so we are coming at the subject from a different persective?

Read this today:

"Dopamine research has changed the way psychiatrists understand and treat drug addiction. Medical researchers have found that the brain chemistry of people taking drugs evolves along the same path as that of animals receiving juice. The drugs first delivers a pleasurable hit and a potent shot of dopamine, but with increasing use the dopamine signal drifts forward in time and attaches to cues predicting the taking of drugs - certain music, or people, or special places, such as a nightclub - and these stimulate a near-irresistible hunger. The really powerful motivation is now the craving of the drug rather than the pleasure it provides. Many addicts actually come to lose the pleasure they once enjoyed from drugs, many even find the actual consumption distasteful, but cannot stop.... Many anti-drug advertising campaings have backfired by misunderstanding this point. These campaigns often featured images depicting the horrors of addiction, maybe a bloody syringe and a dark alley; but these images were the very ones predicting the consumption of drugs, and therefore delivered a large dopamine hit in many reformed addicts, perversely renewing their craving and driving them back."

Just found that interesting.

PS Anyone missing a pair of brown shoes that they left at my gaff?

Ozzy3213 wrote:A car can be driven safely by somebody who has passed a test. Any drug taken by any person at any time has the ability to kill, be that directly by prompting an adverse reaction and shutting vital organs down, or by altering mental state and making the person who has taken it do things that are patently unsafe and put theirs and others lives at risk.

There is no comparison to be made between the acts of driving a car and taking drugs.

None at all - except that in this case, both were highly significant contributing factors. Why highlight the one?

As for your opening paragraph, you're not making a fair comparison. You highlight only the positives of the former and the negatives of the latter.

I wish I wasn't finishing work now because I'm enjoying this debate.

On the other hand -

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:None at all - except that in this case, both were highly significant contributing factors. Why highlight the one?

Are you seriously asking that question? Do you believe that the coronor should have said Driving Kills. Clearly the fact that the driver had consumed a large amount of alcohol and drugs is the significant contributing factor and therefore is the one that is highlighted.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Read this today:

"Dopamine research has changed the way psychiatrists understand and treat drug addiction. Medical researchers have found that the brain chemistry of people taking drugs evolves along the same path as that of animals receiving juice. The drugs first delivers a pleasurable hit and a potent shot of dopamine, but with increasing use the dopamine signal drifts forward in time and attaches to cues predicting the taking of drugs - certain music, or people, or special places, such as a nightclub - and these stimulate a near-irresistible hunger. The really powerful motivation is now the craving of the drug rather than the pleasure it provides. Many addicts actually come to lose the pleasure they once enjoyed from drugs, many even find the actual consumption distasteful, but cannot stop.... Many anti-drug advertising campaings have backfired by misunderstanding this point. These campaigns often featured images depicting the horrors of addiction, maybe a bloody syringe and a dark alley; but these images were the very ones predicting the consumption of drugs, and therefore delivered a large dopamine hit in many reformed addicts, perversely renewing their craving and driving them back."

Just found that interesting.

PS Anyone missing a pair of brown shoes that they left at my gaff?

Hmmm!

I can see some pretty big flaws in that. Can we really equate the feeling an addict might have at the sight of, say, a nightclub with the sight of a person slumped in an alley? I wonder if they did some functional imaging while showing addicts both scenes?

Guns don't kill people rappers do,
I seen it in a documentary on BBC2

PS Anyone missing a pair of brown shoes that they left at my gaff?
.

The Beatles.

Most Coroners are stuffed shirts who believe youngsters hang on their every word.

The point is that the 'drugs kill' message is counterproductive, although as a statement of fact is entirelly accurate. The first time young people take drugs the thought that they may die adds to the excitement. The fact that they (practically all of them with a few tragic exceptions of course) don't then means that any other negative of usage pales into insignificance.

The only logical response to drugs since the 'War' was lost in the early 90's is decriminalise, closely regulate and tax usage.

And another thing, the elephant in the room is the fact that addictive personalities could turn pancakes and syrup into hamfull drugs.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:None at all - except that in this case, both were highly significant contributing factors. Why highlight the one?

Are you seriously asking that question? Do you believe that the coronor should have said Driving Kills. Clearly the fact that the driver had consumed a large amount of alcohol and drugs is the significant contributing factor and therefore is the one that is highlighted.

Ozzy, no I don't believe that the coroner should have said "Driving Kills", but he's just as wrong to say "Drugs Kill". In this case, had the two girls not got in the car, they would have woken up the next morning, feeling rough as hell, but alive nonetheless, disproving the assertion that "Drugs Kill".

Glas, I don't disagree with you about it being counterproductive. The fact is that if people want to take drugs, whatever message is being put out is irrelevant, as people will do what they want to do.

The issue is that the establishment, in this case the coronor has to be seen to be trying to do something to stop similar incidents occuring and other than reiterating the message that drugs kill, there is probably litle else that he/she is able to do.

Would decriminilising drugs work? I don't know, there are arguments for and against that one.

Ok lucky, so what should he have said?

He should have said that drink- and drug-driving kills, because that's what caused these girls' deaths.

I've got to be honest mate and say that if you are gettig your knickers in a knot and getting angry over the the difference between 'drugs kill' and 'taking drugs and then driving kills' then I am guessing you don't have an awful lot to worry about in life.

The statement is at the end of an article about drink/drug driving where two people died, so taken in context it is fairly obvious what he is trying to say.

Just to interrupt this little drugs debate,

I'm off to the AP final Saturday (thanks CCC & Adam)

Ozzy, he says "the message is that drugs kill". That's not the message to be taken from this case. I'm annoyed by that. And I'd prefer you not to assume you know my background, thanks all the same.

Would these girls have considered driving drunk if they had not taken cocaine?

No one will ever know but we do know that cocaine changes people's perceptions of their abilities, as does alcohol.

You have nephews/neices, right? Would you be worried if they were using cocaine?

Why is that not the message to be taken from this case?

Drugs do kill.

You can dress it up however you want that driving was a factor, but had they not been off their jubblies on drink and drugs then it is highly unlikely they would have driven straight into a wall at 50mph.

My nieces are six and four, so yes I'd be worried! When they're grown up, they'd have to make their own choices. Some people take drugs and it fecks them up good and proper. Some take drugs and it doesn't affect their lives one jot. The same's true with alcohol, as you suggest.

Ozzy, that's the thing: he highlights the part one drug played but not the part the other drug played.

Sorry if I've upset anyone here by the way, that wasn't my intention.

And some it kills.

Even crashing into a wall at 50+mph doesn't kill everyone who does it (as witnessed by us the other day) but it is still fair enough to say that hitting walls at speed kills.

You've not upset me luckless, and I hope that I haven't you and apologies if I have. I am just surprised at your stance on this.

He is highlighting the drugs part as it is less highlighted generally than drink driving is. Everybody knows that alcohol and driving is a potentially fatal combination, we have campaigns every year to highlight this and have for as long as I can remember.

Drug impairment whislt driving causing deaths is less well publicised hence he has felt the need to highlight it.

Not upset Lucky.



Interesting debate is all.

I do like a good debate.

Drug-driving's starting to get the attention it deserves, isn't it, Ozzy.

A little, but not as much as it should get. I have been to as many fatal accidents where the drivers had drugs in their systems as alcohol, yet drink driving campaigns are far more prevalent historically.

Recently they seem to be more drink/drug driving campaigns, but I would say that if you did a poll of people on the street nearly all would be aware that there is an offence of drink driving, but far fewer would be aware that there is an offence of driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs.

Would it be easier to test for drugs if they were legal? I'm not asking to start another debate, I'd genuinely like to know.

Right, time to take the pup for a walk!

I can't see how the tests are anymore or less difficult to perform depending on the drug's legality.

I suppose the newest synthetic drugs will always be one step ahead of detection.

One of the difficulties that arises when you try to equate the dangers of alcohol with recreational drugs is that there is very good evidence that a moderate amount of alcohol has many health benefits for the general population. Life expectancy for moderate drinkers is lower than for total abstainers.

I know of no such evidence for any recreational drug.

MrsP wrote:I know of no such evidence for any recreational drug.

I think that there's a good chance that some of the substances found within Cannabis help with certain health ailments, but thats kind of sketchy I understand. However with further research it's possible that they'll find some clinical use for drugs derived from the weed.

Many countries do offer marijuana for medicinal purposes, especially for chemotherapy sufferers.

But I am not talking about therapeutic uses, I'm talking about health benefits in the general population.

There is no doubt that there are very important medical uses for heroin but there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests that heroin users are more healthy than non heroin users.

Quite the opposite!

Indeed!

Is the big fire drama over?

Good evening. How's everyone? It's bloody hot here today.

I don't know. I'm not very observant.

Here too Cari.

Gorgeous weather here the past few days.

Exam time see!

Is that what it is? I shouldn't complain though. We'll have this for a couple more days and never again all year!

sore paw.

Sorry to hear that Puma. What happened to it?

someone at forth valley royal infirmary made hole in it today! it's called carpal tunnel decompression.

Sounds painful. Why did they do that?

Glas a du wrote:And another thing, the elephant in the room is the fact that addictive personalities could turn pancakes and syrup into hamfull drugs.

The comment of that particular discussion. I found it to be very interesting and revealing.

As MrsP said, herself and Ozzy, have been on the harrowing, receiving end of the effects of certain drugs on certain people in Society.

Education and open discussion is the best way forward. Saying Drugs Kill! is counter-productive to the actual problem. If indeed, it is a problem. Drugs - in all their forms, fast-cars, and strong alcohol are not the problem. People are.

So much ignorance. So little time.

I'm with Lucky on this one. I know where he is coming from on it. Not pro-drugs. Just anti the ignorance that surrounds them.

typing with right hand here - apologies for lack of upper case. ligament in wrist presses on nerve, causes numbness and pain in hand. interesting experience being in op theatre wide awake! invited to peer into hole and view nerve in question - wierd! mr puma off on boy's road trip in usa tomorrow. b@stard. having to go to sister's for meals for a wee while

Sounds painful Puma. Hope it heals up very soon anyway.

Puuuma
J cooks for you, for years and then he just walks out like that? Leave im. Yup .

You posting yer pics yet girl? Like in the FB Pub?

Gibbo - YHM. and I'm fine thanks for asking...

thanks cari. gibbo, have downloaded pics onto pc, will have copious amounts of time to upload onto fb over the next few days!! mr puma outside mowing lawn, will need to call him in to make dinner shortly. and another thing - where's my 'sundowner'??