do the police really have nothing better to do than investigate if Kate Moss might have once taken cocaine...really?

Really? You think?

S'not quite the laugh-a-minute victimless crime some would have us belive.

x post

Yes, evil cocaine is the only consumer product relying on exploitation. I assume you make sure that everything you ever spend on money on involves no suffering or exploitation of any kind, Sunshine.

Maybe they could raid KM's home and find her eating a mars bar out of Pete's arse.

No hypocrisy about cocaine: they're all smackheads on the Standard.

xxxxpost

almso i miss kaye badly i amd i want here to come back to me please oh god kate come back to me to me pete dojerty

Uh Pete you got married in NY apparently.

Wouldn't the eating (of fat-laden junk food, no less) be the real scandal there?

in which case..?

You think? Really? Wow, OTM. You better let the Government know. Reach for the red telephone.

What is the common link between all pot smokers? What are the common factors in each of their personalities? How does enjoyment of any drug make the people taking it exactly the same?

You like to talk about the rights of the individual, but how can this be if you do not accept the individual. “Oh, as long as I call all niggers bastards and not single out one in particular, there's no problem”. "As much as I hate I can't help but think how much more disgusting are", said the President.

Please keep your uninformed, bigoted, spiteful opinions to yourself please, as you so often tell others to do. No wait, better still, let everyone know and thus allow people to dismiss any of the comments you make and show yourself up as a hater and an moron.

As much as you like to go on and on, the common link is that - in this country at least - it's still against the law.

So until that law changes, champ on in your illformed swisscheese-brained fashion about your "rights" and my "ill informed opinions" all you like. You're only reinforcing my experiences of and opinion of potheads. Cheers.

they're all smelly, boring, conspiracy theorist hippies duh

They smoke pot?

(PS - viewing black people as just comparison for potsmokers = profoundly offensive!)

"As much as I hate potsmokers, I think there is quite a difference between cannabis and cocaine, both in practice and public perception."

that is quite the stupidest statement of the day, though.

sailor moon is really doing his best to prove aaron spelling right...

xxpost

also, there's the lesser fact that cocaine-use is now incredibly heavily embedded into popular/media culture. it might be different in the sticks, but few in big cities would now consider coke a hard drug. the demon-factor remains with crack and heroin, but a lot of people would put coke, pills and weed in more or less the same bag so to speak. times have moved on..

For a start, there really is a difference between someone who just kind of spliffs up occasionally, for fun, or whatever, and a Pothead. Kind of like there's a difference between a person who likes a pint down the pub after work and a complete alcoholic. I fucking loathe Potheads and I make no excuses about that.

(The irony being, I'm sure people who don't know me very well are taking this to be typical "ooh, Tory wife, doesn't know shit about drugs, just hates everything" conservatism when the truth is, I hate drugs because I've had too *many* experiences with them, both my own and watching horible things happen to friends but whatever.)

Just because something is "embedded within popular culture" doesn't make it right or a good idea or anything else. There is this whole "ooh, it's just a spliff" or "ooh, it's just a little bit of coke" attitude when I just want to say - do you have the faintest idea what this is doing to you, to your brain chemistry? Perhaps you might say this about excessive alcohol consumption as well, but that's something I also have an intensely ambivalent attitude towards.

There's discussion on another thread about someone skinning up at work, and the excuse being "oh, there's barely any tobacco in it" - if someone was sitting at their desk downing vodka, would that be seen as equally nonproblematic?

I think that the criminalisation and demonisation of "soft" drugs might have a harmful effect in that way - once they've started taking them, people become casual about them in a way that they would think twice about if it were alcohol. When actually, pot, and to a far greater extent, coke *do* have far worse effects on neurochemistry. It's not something casual.

Anyway, this will x-post, and it's not like anyone on ILX will actually care about a serious answer to this when it's all about "getting the funnies" or whatever.

x-post

"I think that the criminalisation and demonisation of "soft" drugs might have a harmful effect in that way - once they've started taking them, people become casual about them in a way that they would think twice about if it were alcohol. When actually, pot, and to a far greater extent, coke *do* have far worse effects on neurochemistry. It's not something casual."

don't really understand what you mean here, but i think you'd need to come up with some serious scientific background for your sweeping generalisations about neurochemistry.

I'm pretty sure that the neurochemical effects of smoking pot daily would be outweighed (in terms of empirically observable physical degredation) by drinking alchohol daily. Neither of these pursuits, as with any drug whatsoever, is going to kill you or even shorten your lifespan if pursued in moderation. Obviously, in alll instances, that is frequently not the case.

Sorry to cross-ref the other thread again, but there are a million things about which you could say 'do you have any idea what this is doing to you', and being overweight is not the least of these. Most things in life that produce immediate physical sensations of pleasure, be that sugar, cocaine, pouilly fume or sex are dangerous if the individual concerned doesn't impose certain limitations on him/herself.

my basic point is that it's not up to individuals or the state to be censorious towards others. it mainly comes down to questions of individual responsibility. everyone's got there horror stories about stoners, fatties, alcoholics etc but that's no basis for a rational discussion about any of these issues, let alone how they should be legislated on (not that you were saying that)

What do you want me to do? Link, digest and quote for you? Look it up for yourself, this stuff is out there.

my basic point is that it's not up to individuals or the state to be censorious towards others.

Well, I think with regard to certain behaviours (drinking and drug taking included) it *is* up to the State to set limits on that behaviour. Be it banning, lisencing, age limits, etc. And I definitely live in a State where this is the case. (I don't know where you live.)

x-post. Alcohol's "not being harmless" does not make pot or cocaine any more harmless.

Anyway, I actually have to do some work this afternoon, unlike you potheads. ;-)

There are 2 very opposed sides to the debate. Guess which one your the UK govt took, after interminable consultation exercises, in downgrading cannabis from grade b to c.

Yes of course some regulation is necessary but, with drugs as with food, peeps need to take some self-responsibility and not come to sweeping conclusions purely on the basis of i knew someone who smoked pot once and he went mad therefore potheads are evil style arguments.

Indeed. I wasn't saying there were none, I was asking for an example relevant to the point that they all deserve equal treatment and should be judged and grouped together on the basis of their interest in a drug.

Yes, the nigger comparison was stupid, but i was not awfully keen, just foolish. However, this has nothing to do with whether or not i smoke pot, more to do with an intolerance of ignorance, which is what got me angry. I don't consider this to be "going off the handle at the slightest thing" as this is a serious issue. I agree with the pothead/alcoholic comparison though and i'm glad you see the difference and it's changed my view of your previous comments.

It's repeated experiences with a variety of people with varying degrees of canabis habits. Including, formerly, myself. It's *not* "not a big deal" and it's irresponsible to portray it as such.

My biggest problem with Potheads is that they end up blethering idiots incapable of carrying on a conversation. They are also incapable of following and retaining detail. Who am I to say that they should not be allowed to carry on enjoying this state? However, it's also my business to say that I don't want them around me.

Anyway, why are you going on and on about cannabis when the whole point of this thread is about cocaine? Or are you going to start telling me that the UK is decriminalising that?

x-post

Blah blah, some of my best friends smoke pot, etc. blah blah. There, are you happy? However, they are quite particular and about the time and the place and the amount that they smoke.

I wasn't suggesting you had no friends. the fact that you might have met a variety of people, rather than a solitary smoker, who like to indulge does nothing to validate your argument. You are still engaging in massive, unsubstantiated and obtusely subjective generalisations.

you led the discussion on to cannabis. however, as with kate moss and coke, you've characterising drug-use to denigrate those who use.

in both cases, usage, effect and affect depend on the individual and the careless bad science that you're thrown in doesn't even begin to refute that.

xpots

involuntary repitiousness in conversation is one of the key denoters of dementia. unlike, say, cannabis. your overload of experience is deeply chastening, though.

I actually started the whole digression into cannabis discussion with that qualification.

sorry for the bluntness, but nothing but a pick-axe would seem to work here..

Ad hominem attacks do not help your cause in the slightest. I'm done arguing with you.

to be fair, it would seem that no one here has been 'getting' the fundamental principles which you have espoused. in view of your unique insights, i suggest you apply for the post of transnational drug tsar and do not fail to note on your application that you have known pot-smokers, have suffered a period of tragic dependency yourself and could only not get the job if someone didn't read your application properly.

how will i live through this paradox?

Because they always go on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on about smoking pot!

i run an influential job in a high-pressure environment - if i 'flake out', take a duvet day or pull a sickie, vulnerable people suffer - that's not arrogance, just the reality of my position. i've had 1 1/2 unscheduled days off in the last 3 1/2 years. i'm used to being thoroughly scrutinised and challenged on my words by Very Powerful People from the moment i arrive at my desk. i don't do hangovers - they'd eat me alive.

i'm party to things inside a working day that would make your hair curl. when i get home at night i have to switch off fast. i smoke 'pot' (when i get home). that's my drug of choice. my line managers are very clear that by whatever means I AM NOT TO TAKE MY WORK HOME. because if i did then over a period of time i would fatigue and cease to function at full capacity in working hours.

then i get up and do it all over again.

tell me about your life Brocade - for all your sadwipe self-righteous hatred, i still bet you're more of a flake than me...

While I don't think the Met should really be troubling themselves with this, it is worth thinking about all the women in Holloway or the heathrow morgue who swallowed condoms full of Bolivian marching powder so that Kate & co can get wasted without getting fat.

S'not quite the laugh-a-minute victimless crime some would have us belive.

This is the best. Argument. For decriminalis/zation. Ever.

actually, pot, and to a far greater extent, coke *do* have far worse effects on neurochemistry...

What do you want me to do? Link, digest and quote for you?

Yes, please. No one's asking you to do their research for them, but this is a contentious subject, riddled with fakey-fake "studies" commissioned and/or conducted by zealots, with bespoke data suiting the desired outcome. So again, yes, it would be nice to see where you're getting the information that allows you the certainty that escapes most folks who engage with this stuff.

fwiw, when I was a lad the message in school and pop entertainment was that if you rode your bike through a neighborhood where someone's Colombian aunt had visited several Christmases back OH NOES YOUR BODY WOULD REQUIRE COCAINE FOREVER AND YOU WOULD BE CRAZY AND BAD. More recent studies appear to show that cocaine has very little potential for *physical* addiction. The risk of learned dependency is real, but the long-term effects of casual use on neurochemistry are effectively nil - quit and you may miss it like fuck and annoy people less at parties, but you won't go through withdrawal and you won't have all the serotonin slosh out of your brain.

'Course, the next study may show something else altogether.

dub-dub-dub-dot-e-r-o-w-i-d-dot-com doesn't suck

So you use pot as a relaxant? So what? Lots of us use pot or alcohol in this way - something that Kate has mentioned way up thread:

("For a start, there really is a difference between someone who just kind of spliffs up occasionally, for fun, or whatever, and a Pothead. Kind of like there's a difference between a person who likes a pint down the pub after work and a complete alcoholic")

And I don't give a flying fuck what you do for a living. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

And I'm not sure where the hell you got "sadwipe self-righteous hatred" from. Because whatever the rights and wrongs of Kate's argument, I never read anything like that. Sure she said she hates potheads, but I can quite easily say I hate alcoholics and the vast majority of this board would agree with me. What is the difference?

And is Kate "more of a flake" than you? Maybe yes, maybe no. But the implication from your post is that you work in a caring profession. If you truly believe that Kate is "more of a flake" than you, is your attitude the correct way of approaching her? I don't think so...

Back to the actual subject matter of this thread - of course it is a victimless crime. What Kate Moss sticks up her septum is her own affair - I couldn't give a toss.

What I do give a toss about is the cynical hypocrisy being touted by the tabloid (and larger) press and their seeming ability to "knee jerk" the Met into a reaction. It stinks and I hope to God there is no truth in the stories of the Met seriously thinking of prosecuting in this case.

This, FWIW, is, in my experience, completely and utterly true. It's the learned dependency that gets you with this particular drug, the habitual "I'm doing this so I should be doing this too, I'm not comfortable in this situation without XYZ all falling into place proper" that is the main problem. Not the physical issues at all, because I don't know a person that I would qualify as a pretty serious cokehead who can't get through quite a few nights without the drug. It has to do with what you are doing, whether or not you choose to do the drug. You're not sitting at home watching the game doing lines, basically. Even with $500+ a weekers I've known.

they're going to anyway, and no law is going to stop them. it's just more media circus, throwing the user of the week to the lions for the entertainment of the masses.

the logical conclusion is a trip to rehab and/or a celeb's apology to the public. (i'm so sorry that tender children saw that picture you put on the news of the white powder going up my nose! i am getting my life together now, oh and my reality tv series about it, "Moss Takes A Powder", starts Friday).

que toma que toma que toma en paz!

Because you're right, the correct move is shame, humility, and a very public trip to rehab. And for what? Who the fuck cares? I mean, fuck the Guardian, but fuck the public too for feigning shock and shattered innocence.

On the list of things that make for headline copy when Discovered Up The Nose Of Kate Moss, cocaine wouldn't make my Hot Hundred.

(Honestly, I'm sorry I got drawn into this argument yesterday. It was work procrasturbation, TBH. If other people want to willfully misunderstand what I'm trying to express, it's their problem. I really don't have the time or the effort to wade through tedious grandstanding that sounds like some 15 year old whose mum has discovered their stash.)

Now can we get back to taking the piss out of Kate Moss, please?

Marcello, KM's daddy was taking her business class to New York when she was discovered; her family are *hardly* poor so please clarify below-stairs comment.

"What happens when oiks shag Royalty." The ghost of Peter Sellers writes...

She hasn't lost her Burberry contract yet...

Croydon is Hell.

News of the show has caused a fuss even in the liberal Netherlands

I have yet to read an article in a dutch newspaper about this.. a fuss haha. LIES :)

Also a similar show has been done on the dutch radio..
Nothing new..

Croydon isn't in Surrey any more.

and suddenly the nation is outraged at either kate's cocaine habit or police even bothering (even though they probably aren't really)

< /derail!>

xpost to tom.

I think even more absurdly Sutton is officially not in Surrey too, which leaves Epsom as the limit of Actual Surrey.

[/derail]

xpost

i run an influential job in a high-pressure environment - if i 'flake out', take a duvet day or pull a sickie, vulnerable people suffer - that's not arrogance, just the reality of my position. i've had 392 scheduled days off in the last 4 1/2 years. i'm used to being thoroughly scrutinised and challenged on my words by Very Powerful People and Liberals from the afternoon i arrive at my desk. i don't do newspapers - they'd eat me alive.

i'm partying to things inside a working day that would make your hair curl. when i get home at night i have to switch off fast. i snort coke . that's my drug of choice. my line managers advisers are very clear that by whatever means I AM NOT TO WORK WHEN THEY'RE NOT THERE. because if i did then over a period of time i would fuck things up more than you would believe and cease to function at full capacity in waking hours.

then i get up and do it all over again. it's hard work i tell ya. i work very hard and i'm workin hard

tell me about your life Brocade - for all your sadwipe self-righteous hatred, i still bet you're more of a flake than me...

2) Actually, I don't. You don't read every thread I contribute to, do you?

God, I read way too much trash. :-(

H&M down, Chanel down, "career in tatters" according to a tabloid I read over someone's shoulder on the bus - what else is left? Heh.

I can understand H&M dropping her cause they have a very strict no-drugs policy/stance (or whatever you call it). But Burberry? Chanel? Me thinks this is also the perfect chance to drop her without a court case, no? WHATEVER, she'll be back.

1)Croydon is in the London Borough of Croydon.

2)The argument about snorting coke not being a victimless crime because of dying drug 'mules' doesn't really make sense. Imagine if many western governments outlawed mobile phones or tobasco sauce or razor blades or something, but there was still substantial consumer demand for these products within those western countries. The black market would illictly produce these products and people would smuggle them into those western countries. Some of those people would be very poor and desperate and be willing to jeopardise their safety (by swallowing dozens of phones / jars of sauce / blades / whatever) in return for cash. Some of them would die. This does not make the act of texting / shaving / eating chilli con carne inherently evil. It is the criminalisation of the act which causes the problem. Trust me - no one's dying from having too many mobile phones in their stomachs.

reading through my original post i find it kinda comical that i use the insult 'self-righteous' inside such a blatantly sanctimonious post - pot/kettle/black eh brocade? i suppose my point was that you shouldn't stereotype drug users. my short term memory is fine and what's more i...i...err what was the thread about again?

oh yes kate moss. i think popbitch says it best:

Moss on the cross Model crucified for enjoying herself Now that the world's worst-kept secret has finally made it on to the front of the tabloids - thin model likes drugs and sex - everyone is queuing up to have a go at Kate Moss. Even her rivals' model agencies have been getting in on the act, writing letters to the likes of Chanel and Rimmel, pretending to be irate customers, and trying to get her dropped because they are sick of her getting all the big contracts and their models getting none. But leading the anti-Moss charge are, of course, the newspapers, who are ecstatic about the opportunity to put a circulation-friendly beautiful woman on the cover while sanctimoniously attacking her for taking drugs and having sex.

NRQ thanks - do a search on my posts - you'll find i'm never less than upfront about my twatiness. still i have my personal standards. i like to tell myself that despite all my faults i'm still only a fraction of the cunt presented by that alan bloke on the katrina aftermath thread.

and for the satisfaction of all you haterz out there, my car blew up terminally last night - karma in action!

I think the word "inherently" is doing a lot of work here. Nothing is "inherently" evil - things are evil because of their consequences. To think that taking drugs has no consequences for anyone else is somewhat disingenuous.

I'm not saying that, though, am I? I'm saying that you can't use the plight of drugs mules as an argument against drugs (and hence in favour of their prohibition) when it's the very prohibition which brings about the plight of the drugs mules. Obviously there are OTHER reasons why cocaine is more harmful than tobasco sauce. (or mobile phones, etc.)

In that case I would weigh how much I really needed Tabasco sauce versus the harm to society that would be caused by my continuing to support the illicit Tabasco trade.

http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2005/09/wholesome.html

"...while H&M now insists that it has cleaned up its act, some concern remains, esp from the labor movement. Whoever's sewing H&M's clothes these days, let's pray to the Almighty that they aren't doing drugs while working (though how someone can stitch for 16-plus hours at a time without some kind of stimulant is beyond me). Wholesome sweat means wholesome apparel, sold at affordable prices."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/business/26link.html?8hpib

eh? i thought it was or have i been watching too much ali g?

i'm a brit btw

omg this is brilliant! it had never occurred to me that this could ever cause confusion.

minger rhymes with singer down south, but with finger up north - much as film sounds a bit like fiwm down south, but like fillum if you're from the north-east. crikey.

is very strong at all??

We don't like to talk about the double G finger madness to outsiders.

anyway. back to kate moss.

I am having typing issues today.

*note -- there's a phonetic symbol for this, but i don't know how to make it show up.

Nooooooo! Because we say 'fing-guh'. It's not that we lack the hard 'g' it's that people from Liverpool (and perhaps Wolverhampton and who knows where else) always have a hard 'g' at the end of '-ng' words.

1 hour, 11 minutes ago
LONDON - Two British newspapers reported Thursday that Kate Moss has checked into a rehabilitation clinic in Arizona.

Friends of the 31-year-old supermodel who was photographed apparently snorting cocaine told The Times that Moss flew to The Meadows clinic, where she will spend a month in "medical treatment and therapy."

A nurse on duty at the Wickenburg, Ariz., facility said she could not confirm or deny a patient's presence. The model's agent wasn't immediately available for comment Thursday. Several phone calls to the Storm modeling agency went unanswered.

Moss lost contracts with H&M, Burberry and Chanel worth millions of dollars after the photos were published in the Daily Mirror tabloid.

Moss issued an apology last week, taking "full responsibility for my actions." In her statement, Moss said, "I also accept that there are various personal issues that I need to address and have started taking the difficult, yet necessary, steps to resolve them."

Sarah Doukas, head of the Storm modeling agency, said Wednesday that Moss would soon sign a contract to represent a luxury perfume brand.

"She loves modeling — and she needs to be busy," Doukas said.

Is that really true? I wasn't aware Chanel was trying to project some kind of image of glowing health. It's not like she was promoting Chance.

BTW a couple of people ex my magazine have jobs at Chanel's creative department.

Kate Moss Out of Rehab By Josh Grossberg
Sat Oct 29,11:53 PM ET

Kate Moss is headed back to the runway.

The supermodel checked out of an Arizona rehab facility earlier this week and plans to reunite with her 3-year-old daughter, Lila Grace, and get back to work, according to a rep from the Storm modeling agency.

Moss, 31, entered the Meadows Clinic outside of Phoenix last month, days after London's Daily Mirror published embarrassing photos of her "hoovering up" lines of cocaine at a late-night recording session for rocker-beau, Pete Doherty and his band, Babyshambles.

"Kate is in excellent spirits and looking forward to getting back to work. She would like to thank everyone for their messages of support as they have played a major part in helping her," a Storm spokesperson said in a statement.

The Daily Mirror's scathing expose threatened to derail the baby-faced catwalker's long career as several luxury purveyors, including H&M, Chanel and Burberry, canceled million-dollar contracts with her.

In the aftermath, Moss released a statement expressing regret over her behavior, apologizing to people she let down, and indicating she was taking action to address her personal problems, but stopping short of admitting her drug use.

Moss previously checked herself into a drug treatment center in 1998, claiming she was suffering from "exhaustion." She later admitted she'd been hitting the bottle and getting high before hopping on the catwalk, but denied ever indulging in harder substances.

Moss, whose longtime agent said she was "absolutely devastated" by the cocaine allegations, has her share of defenders, including fellow fashionista Naomi Campbell, who called the uproar a "vendetta" against her friend, and actress Sharon Stone, who said Moss' mess wasn't a big deal because she was owning up to her mistakes.

Unfortunately, the headlines of cocaine use by the celebrity have spurred a police investigation, and it's possible Moss may face questioning by authorities if she returns to Great Britain.

U.K. police also arrested Doherty, 26, and interrogated him for more than 12 hours after conducting a raid on the ex-Libertines front man and his group backstage at Music Hall in Shrewsbury, England, where Babyshambles was playing a gig.

Per the Guardian newspaper, investigators seized drugs including heroin, Ecstasy, LSD and cocaine. Doherty, who was released on bail, declared the matter afterward a "pain in the arse," before heading for a pub.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20051030/en_celeb_eo/17664;_ylt=AolLQMhPiP9XeyiJI3xtduoXIr0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--