Absolute tragedy - poor lad.

I always thought he looked OK, nothing outstanding just OK, but Sam clearly doesn't rate him at all. Even though he was fit last year he hardly featured at all in an injury plagued season. Who knows maybe he just hasn't impressed in training.

So the obvious question was - what's the point in keeping him if his wages are high? I'm guessing they were hoping for a sale over summer but will now happily make do with a loan.

I heard in California currently that if you have medical reasons, you can get a license to obtain weed legally. Apparently it's simply easy to get the document also.

There's also an iPhone app, which tells you the nearest distributors of "legal" weed, and if you get into any trouble the app "gives you the locations of the nearest lawyers who specialize in marijuana cases":

http://www.pcworld.com/article/168736/need...e_can_help.html

Actually, you have to tell your prospective employers about any felony convictions.

I'll be honest I got my info from a Bill Bryson book. Whilst he refreshingly has a pro drugs slant, that may have affect his liberal application of the truth.

Do they conduct the 'softly softly, prosecute the dealer not the user' approach over there like they do here?

No, they don't. They conducted the "come down on everyone extremely hard" approach - be it dealer or user.

Just being caught in poccession in the States can, and does, lead to huge penalties - loss of benefits for life, a mandatory life obligation to tell an employer about past drug offences (they don't insist on the same thing for offences like rape or murder bizarrely).

From the 80's onwards the US took an extremely hard approach to drug enforcement and this obviously hasn't worked.

I'd be extremely surprised if they changed tact though.

Probably the most simplistic and naive comment I have ever read on this messageboard .

Try for one minute to contemplate the logistical , military social and political (as well as a whole host of other problems) that would be necessary to make this happen . What then do you propose "the West" do with the crop once it has been meekly handed over for this risible sum of £1 billion ? Burn it ? Give it to the junkies for nowt ?

Giving to "the junkies for nowt" in financial terms, would certainly be far, far cheaper than the current situation - which is the huge cost of crime that junkies currently commit to obtain their illegally sourced heroin.

If it's £1 billion for the entire Afghan crop - then let's say for argument's sake the UK take a huge proportion of that compared to their actual user base - say one tenth - that's still only £100m a year. That's a fraction of what businesses lose each year to junkies feeding their habit. I'm not talking a half or a third here either - £100m would probably be about a fiftieth (1/50!) of the current cost from crime that's purely to feed heroin habits. Factor in the benefits you would see from taking the drugs out of the hands of the criminals as well, and the financial gain to society would be huge. Monumentally huge.

Now also don't forget we already have a health service in place which happily gives out heroin substitute to junkies, which already costs the taxpayer in terms of drug production and then user management. To take that to the next stage of making heroin available for junkies instead of methadone would be tiny compared to the savings made elsewhere. And as someone has already pointed out - this approach has actually shown to make the demand for heroin drop in countries where this has been tried.

So why aren't we at least trialling this approach?

The answer of course is ignorant and naive people like you who either don't understand the situation or simply just believe all the nonsense they read in the Daily Mail. Any attempt to actually do something useful when it comes to drug policy is seen as a vote loser and therefore nothing gets done, and we continue in the current complete and utter mess we are in (drug production and distribution in the hands of criminals, funded by further crime, all at huge, huge costs to the taxpayer – madness!) . This situation has reached such a point that the government has now started to ignore it's own scientifically based advisory committee in favour of what they think the voter wants - a voter they believe to be the average Daily Mail reader presumably.

milkman

From a morale perspective what has this bloke actually done wrong? There are absolutely no victims in this. The pensioners got something which they enjoy - where are they going to get that from now?

IMO the bloke should be put forward to the Pride of Britain awards not prosecuted!

I find our post rather strange. Virtually all the sources I have come across both mainstream academic, left, right all agree that along with counterfeit goods, exporting heroin is the largest source of income for global terrorism.

Before the last Islamic reformation (before 1990). Turkish gangs were by far and away the largest importers of Heroin from Afghanistan into the UK, however this has changed and Kashmiri gangs are monopolizing the market. I have provided numerous sources to back up my claims on the drugs trade been the chief funding tool for global Islamist terror.

As for you banging on about the media and other people calling the Jihadist’s in Afghanistan Taliban- does it really matter what they are called? They are the same Deobandi—Wahhabi Islamists that ground the country of Afghanistan into the dirt. Making it the poorest nation on the planet.

I get the impression that no-matter what evidence is presented to you; that you have made your mind up and will take the same dogmatic approach as many other posters.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Anyhow we are obviously getting sidetracked.

The whole point of this discussion is simple - that leaflet. The leaflet stated we should "heap comdenation" on muslims who should "apologise" because "they are responsible for 95% of the world's heroin trade".

Given that we know (included from your own links); that the Taliban are no longer strict adherants of Islam (when they were they cut opium production) and that once it leaves Afghanistan it no longer funds terrorists it instead funds criminals. Knowing this how is it reasonable that we should "heap comdenation" on UK muslims for the world's heroin trade?

Simnple yes or no - do you think the original leafet is reasonable?

Do you in fact think it would be perfectly sensible, as I suggested, for me to go and have a dig at the Asian bloke with the shop up my road for the heroin / terrorism in Afghanistan?

Incidentally, I wouldn't quote http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/ as a news source like you have; a tagline of "Defending Milosevic, Defending Serbia" doesn't exactly shout unbiased IMO!

You are talking out your backside. The Taliban are not even from Afghanistan they are originally from Pakistan and are of Pashtun origin.

The Taliban follow an extremist version of Islam called Deobandi which is taught throughout the Madrassas in Pakistan and was part of the reason why the British taxpayer is paying money to re-educate many of the Madrassa followers.

Really? Here's a Channel 4 news report from less than a week ago. The important bits are from about 7 mins onwards - with the "Taliban" drinking, gambling and listening to music (all banned by their formerly extremist incarnation):

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/poli...e+enemy/2458502

This report is also important as it mentions the funding of the Taliban from outside countries (Pakistan) not from opium.

Besides which the old fundamentalist Taliban (before they were ousted by us) almost eradicated opium production:

"The area of land given over to growing opium poppies in 2001 fell by 91 per cent compared with the year before, according to the UN Drug Control Programme's (UNDCP) annual survey of Afghanistan. Production of fresh opium, the raw material for heroin, went down by an unprecedented 94 per cent, from 3,276 tonnes to 185 tonnes.

Almost all Afghan opium this year came out of territories controlled by America's ally in the assault on Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance. Because of a ban on poppy farming, only one in 25 of Afghanistan's opium poppies was being grown in Taliban areas."

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/prediction.html

The difference between Columbia and the Afghanistan is that; whilst I accept( to a lesser extent) cocaine finances far-left guerrilla groups in Colombia, the money is spent on fighting the government of Columbia ( in a typical political asymmetrical localised conflict)- The situation in Afghanistan couldn’t be more polarised. UK citizens are importing heroin as means to fund terrorism against there own citizens and other Western citizens that don’t follow there monolithic vision of society.

You are making a huge unlinked jump there though. The Taliban may be benefitting directly from the farmers / middle men in Afghanistan but there is no evidence that once it leaves that country it is profitted by anyone other than criminals. The majority of heroin is brought into the UK by Turkish criminals via Iran. Do you think these established Turkish gangs are suddenly going to give up the most lucrative part of the process for no apparent reason? The Turkish gangs sell to British criminal gangs - where do you suggest these British Jihadi's fit into this new equation and why would the established profiteers allow them too? Not even the BNP are claiming that "UK citizens are importing heroin as means to fund terrorism". The link between terrorism and heroin is wholly within Afghanistan. Even if it were true though (it's not mind), are all muslims to blame, regardless of their own personal beliefs and morals?

I'm intrigued - do you actually think it's reasonable, as the leaflet suggests, to "heap condemnation" on Muslims in this country for the production of heroin in Afghanistan? Should they "apologise" because "they are responsible for 95% of the world's heroin trade"?

Should I pop up to the shop up my road and have a right pop at the asian owner there for this outrage? I suspect he would, quite rightly, think I'm either mad or on drugs for making such a ridiculously tenuous link. Do you not agree?

Firstly you are making a distinction between religion, politics and society- Within tribal Afghanistan and Kashmir this simply doesn’t exist – It is called Islamism.

The other distinction one must make between Cocaine in Columbia & Heroin in Afghanistan – is Cocaine is sold purely to make drugs lords richer, Heroin from Afghanistan is imported into our country by Muslims to partly fund terrorist activity.

Cocaine isn't sold purely "to make drugs lords richer". Ever heard of FARC? They are a huge terrorist organisation in Columbia funded directly by the cocaine trade. The links between cocaine and terrorism in South America is far stronger than that of heroin and terrorism in Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary...rug_trafficking

Over and above that, the Taliban, whilst in power in Afghanistan actually cut down the production of opium in the country as it didn't agree with their religious ideals. Production has increased dramatically since we went in and overthrew them. Since then however a new "Taliban" has emerged (Taliban is a broad term used by the media to encompass anyone against the occupation of Afghanistan). Parts of this new Taliban are without the religious ideals - they even drink alcohol. They are happy to allow opium to be grown and make money from it. This clearly has absolutely nothing to do with their religion as it goes against it.

Which comes to my point - this leaflet is obviously intended to spread bad feeling against muslims in this country by linking their religion to something it has little, if anything, to do with (imagine giving a catholic grief in this country for the cocaine epidemic in this country?!). It's produced for morons who's only grasp of the real facts are gained from leaflets like this or what some half cut bloke at the bar spouts at their local.

No action taken over muslim heroin claims

I think that this is some rare common sense from the police and Crown Prosecution Service to take no action here. While some on the liberal left may get their knickers in a twist over the leaflets, it is technically accurate to say that around 95% of heroin in Britain originally comes from Afghanistan, where about 99% of the population are muslim.

I don't personally see anything wrong with leaflets which point out the horrors of heroin and which inform the public as to where the vast majority of the evil dangerous drug originally comes from.

You can't make it up.

The leaflet says people should "heap condemnation" on Muslims and it is time for them to "apologise" as it claims they are responsible for 95% of the world's heroin trade.

The vast majority of cocaine comes from South American countries where the vast majority of people are catholic. Are catholics therefore responsible for Britain's cocaine epidemic? Should we start standing outside catholic churches to "heap condemnation" until they "apologise" too?

Heroin is grown in Afghanistan because of the climate and the economic situation there, cocaine is grown in Bolivia etc because of similar reasons. The religion of country has little, if anything, to do with it.

This leaflet is clearly there to blame muslims for something which has nothing to do with their religion or them. I'm sorry for being blunt but if you cannot understand that you are a moron.

One that I saw on website, but bizarrely never heard it chanted at Ewood:

You better watch out,

You better beware,

He's good on the ground and he's good in the air,

Santa Cruz is coming to town.

I personally think poor old Gamst needs a decent song, he's been with us four years now and he never gets a song sung for him. I personally think he changed his name from Pedersen to Gamst so we'd maybe sing a decent one!

Blue mooon,

you spent your money too soon,

it`s in a bank in Rangoon,

your going down with the toon

Special for the city fans!

Truly inspired