• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Fascinating chart tho' no idea how those calculations are arrived at....and a few notables are missing (like diazepam).....
 
Fascinating chart tho' no idea how those calculations are arrived at....and a few notables are missing (like diazepam).....

It was Prof. David Nutt's work that Gordon Brown's government dismissed because it doesn't fit the public perception of drugs that (current) illegal = bad, alcohol & tobacco = good.
 
What do the figures mean. Are they a percentage chance of causing harm to a person or the number of people, per 100, affected by usage.

If the latter, surely those figures are heavily weighted, though, as there's going to be more harm caused by alcohol, because anyone can get hold of and use it. If everyone could get hold of heroin in the same way as alcohol, then that would change the percentages, wouldn't it?
 
What do the figures mean. Are they a percentage chance of causing harm to a person or the number of people, per 100, affected by usage.

If the latter, surely those figures are heavily weighted, though, as there's going to be more harm caused by alcohol, because anyone can get hold of and use it. If everyone could get hold of heroin in the same way as alcohol, then that would change the percentages, wouldn't it?

Dunno mate, I've not read the paper in any depth.

What does it show?
The report found heroin, crack cocaine, and methyamphetamine to be the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), with alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine as the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.
It also found the legal status of most drugs to bear little relation to their harms.


The rankings of harm to the user would be unlikely to change drastically if all drugs were controlled or, conversely, not controlled, as those harms are intrinsically linked to their effects on the mind and body. However, the harms to society could change if a drug’s legal status changed. There are examples in a number of countries of different levels of control, such as in Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Finland and parts of Australia and the USA, amongst others. However, it is not possible to expect identical results if replicated in the UK, given the wide variety of cultural and historical factors that can influence drug use and especially problem drug use.

https://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/drug-harms-paper-a-summary/
 
Thanks 'MKS'. Clear as mud.

I think what it's saying is that if heroin was legalized, alcohol would still cause more harm.

The harm question is then split into what type of harm. Physical harm to others is probably more likely after alcohol rather than heroin is consumed/taken. Maybe through violence.

The effect on your own body is the key comparison.
 
With 4 weeks away from contact football all Nile's little niggle and strain injuries ought to be behind him now. I have little doubt that PB, GC and a fitness coach will have been giving Nile a list of what he needed to be doing in the 4 weeks to keep trim and also to display contrite, reformed awareness and behaviour so he can quickly get back involved in 1st team football.
I recognise I am looking for positives and i hope this is what has been occurring.:unsure:
 
Let's hope so. More worrying still is the news that Mooney is back in training.

Mooney's not great and rightly won't be in the starting eleven but he's not as bad as some make out, he was most people's MotM when we beat Millwall 3-1 at home and whilst he was the scapegoat the whole team was awful before he got injured, Cox arguably looked worse than him and got dropped in favour of Mooney and he's managed to turn it around. I'd give Mooney the benefit of the doubt for now (although it's unlikely he'll get a new contract given the quality we have).
 
With 4 weeks away from contact football all Nile's little niggle and strain injuries ought to be behind him now. I have little doubt that PB, GC and a fitness coach will have been giving Nile a list of what he needed to be doing in the 4 weeks to keep trim and also to display contrite, reformed awareness and behaviour so he can quickly get back involved in 1st team football.
I recognise I am looking for positives and i hope this is what has been occurring.:unsure:

If they've been giving him advice and guidance, suggesting he delete his twitter account would be a great place to start
 
With 4 weeks away from contact football all Nile's little niggle and strain injuries ought to be behind him now. I have little doubt that PB, GC and a fitness coach will have been giving Nile a list of what he needed to be doing in the 4 weeks to keep trim and also to display contrite, reformed awareness and behaviour so he can quickly get back involved in 1st team football.
I recognise I am looking for positives and i hope this is what has been occurring.:unsure:

I would hope so, too, but a lot of that depends on what Nile was receiving from the club, in terms of our commitment.

Many of us thought he was toast and we were just waiting for news from the club of his departure. If the club were holding this stance with him, as well and made a late decision to stick with him, following a more lenient ban from the FA, then I'm guessing they didn't have too much contact with him about staying fit.

My gut feeling is he won't feature before the end of this month and certainty before next weekend at the very earliest.
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top