W arren has his say on Hatton

[jBacca]

Come now, what % of rich successful people do you think haven't tried it at least the once?

I would say most people who have worked their arses off to make a business or career from scratch never get invloved with poop like that. They dont have time. They are focused on what they want to acheive. Drugs are not conducive to a great career. You need to be able to think straight when the pressure is on. There really isnt anything positive to say about them.

Not what he asked though, is it. Besides the fact that I know quite a few successful self-made types who've indulged (and often over indulged) in recreational drugs, the man asked how many rich people who've tried it, not how many entrepreneurs. I can't think of anyone I know with money in their pocket and time on their hands (Ricky is the head of Hatton Promotions and a boxing man - I doubt he spends all days doing the books, printing the posters and making the teas; he's there to set the direction of the company any delegate the grunt work to people better suited to doing it) that hasn't at least given it a little tickle.

Flip me, there's a lot of sanctimonious bollocks being written on here. Much of it, I suspect, by people who would regard going out and drinking until they fall down/throw up/fall down and throw up as all good clean fun. Which it is by the way, as long as you aren't doing it every bloody night...

If Ricky really is doing "industrial amounts" of ching, then I'm glad he's taking steps to sort out his personal demons and I wish him all the luck in the world. I dunno if he is - I've never met him, and you will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of those that sell out their 'friends' to the gutter press as gospel.

And if Ricky's a light recreational user who's checked into the priory on his PR agency's advice to get the hypocritical pondscum that make up our glorious taploid press of his back, then I also wish him all the luck in the world.

Drugs are not conducive to a great career. You need to be able to think straight when the pressure is on.

What, like the kind of pressure the Prime Minister of a nation holding out against invading fascists might feel?

Explained my thoughts better than I could have hoped for

[IRLangmaid25]

When I first read that Ricky Hatton had been caught I was very surprised that he was doing cocaine, and then you read the article all you can see is the age old Formula of Recently Retired Sportsman with too much time and money on his hands and spunking his hard earned money on booze and/or drugs etc, and when I read allegedly's comments I could not help thinking that despite wishing him the best in rehab there was the backhanded edge in wanting the Board of Control to take away Hatton's licence to Promote so he can snap all of the fighters currently Hatton's books unless Gareth Williams applies for one or already has one, and I do feel Hatton should be suspended to give him time to get himself in the right direction.

[mickey1975]

When I first read that Ricky Hatton had been caught I was very surprised that he was doing cocaine, and then you read the article all you can see is the age old Formula of Recently Retired Sportsman with too much time and money on his hands and spunking his hard earned money on booze and/or drugs etc, and when I read allegedly's comments I could not help thinking that despite wishing him the best in rehab there was the backhanded edge in wanting the Board of Control to take away Hatton's licence to Promote so he can snap all of the fighters currently Hatton's books unless Gareth Williams applies for one or already has one, and I do feel Hatton should be suspended to give him time to get himself in the right direction.

He's already had half of Hatton's stable and let them go!I dont think there is anyone,with the possible exception of Quigg and Roberts that FW would want.Maybe Matt Hatton so he could get him a good hiding!

[Carbo]

Not what he asked though, is it. Besides the fact that I know quite a few successful self-made types who've indulged (and often over indulged) in recreational drugs, the man asked how many rich people who've tried it, not how many entrepreneurs. I can't think of anyone I know with money in their pocket and time on their hands (Ricky is the head of Hatton Promotions and a boxing man - I doubt he spends all days doing the books, printing the posters and making the teas; he's there to set the direction of the company any delegate the grunt work to people better suited to doing it) that hasn't at least given it a little tickle.

Flip me, there's a lot of sanctimonious bollocks being written on here. Much of it, I suspect, by people who would regard going out and drinking until they fall down/throw up/fall down and throw up as all good clean fun. Which it is by the way, as long as you aren't doing it every bloody night...

If Ricky really is doing "industrial amounts" of ching, then I'm glad he's taking steps to sort out his personal demons and I wish him all the luck in the world. I dunno if he is - I've never met him, and you will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of those that sell out their 'friends' to the gutter press as gospel.

And if Ricky's a light recreational user who's checked into the priory on his PR agency's advice to get the hypocritical pondscum that make up our glorious taploid press of his back, then I also wish him all the luck in the world.

I have no idea why people think that alcohol and narcotics are somehow the same. It's an easy argument to say, "well, if alcohol's legal, so should be cocaine." But it's also an incredibly lazy and ill considered argument.

To utterly stupefy yourself on cocaine is morally synonymous with utterly stupefying yourself on alcohol, but that doesn't mean alcohol and cocaine are the same. Alcohol is a substance that need not be stupefying: millions of people drink it every day without any noticeable affect. Indeed, it is thought that in smaller quantities it is almost certainly healthy to drink. Meantime, it is possible to drink alcohol because one likes the flavour, and certianly a significant portion (most?) people who drink don't do it with the express intention of getting intoxicated. None of these things can be said about cocaine. It is taken specifically for its intoxicating affect. It is not possible to just take small amounts and not feel any affect (indeed, why would you want to?) There are no real health benefits, and indeed, beyond those whose lives have been seriously affected by addiction, those who have had cocaine related strokes and heart attacks, or who have drank far more alcohol than their body could have handled without cocaine, will attest to the health risks.

Just because you or your mates haven't had problems, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that out to everyone.

Which brings us on to something else: We forget that these drugs were banned for a reason. Cocaine wasn't banned because the government didn't want us to have fun, but because it is an extremely dangerous drug, both in terms of the health dangers, and its addictiveness. Further, the damage caused to society by addicts was large.

Of course, the last paragraph is true of alcohol, but it is impossible to ban alcohol without affecting the majority, who drink without total inebriation, or who drink for the taste. But to say that alcohol is totally legal and free is not true. Those who sell it must have a licence, for which they must fulfil certain criteria and accept certain monitoring. The times at which it can be sold are (or were until recently) tightly controlled. I remember when I was young that pubs closed during the afternoon, for instance, and then closed for good at 11pm. No all nighters.

Further, it's not true to say that we have strict prohibition of drugs here. There may be in the law, but de facto, we simply don't. I mean, are the police arresting Ricky for being caught red handed? Nope. Would they if they'd had a video of a celebrity stealing? Or beating up someone? Or committing any other crime? Yes. You just try to get arrested for carrying or smoking marijuana. It's next to impossible.

[ALI]

I wouldn't say BoxRec is taking an 'ultra cautious' view...

I'm sorry you were irritated by the deletion of the posts but if even posters like you, with an inside view, can't understand why some things are zapped, we've got little chance of convincing others.

Sorry Ian, but its ultra cautious when entire threads are getting deleted. This approach completely spoils the forum for me. Why is it that potentially libellous material cannot just be edited out of a post, for example:

I think Ricky Hatton *TEXT REMOVED BY MODERATOR* for more than a year now.

This appraoch would allow the thread to continue and would not upset all of those who read/contributed to it. Simply bining the entire thing because of one piece of potential libel is being ultra cautious!

[dondada]

Ali - your suggested approach is the ideal one.

As I explained elsewhere, the mods are all busy people. If they see a thread with several potentially/arguably libellous statements on a five minute break from work, they don't have the time to do what you suggest.

So it comes down, regrettably.

As I've also said, don't make us out to be the bad people here. It's being done for a reason. As Carbo pointed out, if it was YOUR forum, you would be doing the same thing or running the risk of a big bill...EVEN IF you had done f*ck all wrong. Rich man's, sh1tty law.

[boxingchat]

I agree but libel is an untruth or damaging staement so it should be taken down. Blanking it out is one thing but filling in the blacks is not too hard really is it.

Just to clarify my comment that the Board have to BAN him. I don't mean forever and maybe a suspension would have been a better word to use. He simply isn't in a fit state to make decisions or be around Boxers and/or have an influence on their careers until he regains his senses.

Hatton has a good boxing brain and alot of experience and therefore has something to give back, but if people on Coke think they can fly or even fight the world he could ultimately make a call that sees someone getting seriously hurt (Just a thought; was he on gear when he made a european title fight for Scott Lawton?) There is no once else in his organisation apart from Richard Poxon who has any idea about the business at all so this is something that the Board should consider as clearly he's not only a danger to himself but to others, plus he has dragged boxing into what was a bad week for sport in general and need to be punished to send a message out to othetrs that the Board actually do have some control.

I'm all for forgiveness and rehabilitation but the punishment has to be served first before all this sympathy is dished out to him. If he has any respect for the sport he'd realise that himself.

[dondada]

I agree but libel is an untruth or damaging staement so it should be taken down.

Oh, I wish it were this simple! Not an untruth but simply something a writer/publisher can not prove to be true - that's the tricky bit which allows c*nts to exploit the system, such as Jeffrey Archer who won a boat load of money (from the Star, I think) then had to give it all back when the allegations were later proved to be true.

[rhino222]

this whole hatton cocaine issue is not something that has just happened, those in the know knew hatton was on the charlie, i was told 6 months ago.....

did i go to the NOTW......no

was i disgusted with hatton.......yes

[Lenny]

Not what he asked though, is it. Besides the fact that I know quite a few successful self-made types who've indulged (and often over indulged) in recreational drugs, the man asked how many rich people who've tried it, not how many entrepreneurs. I can't think of anyone I know with money in their pocket and time on their hands (Ricky is the head of Hatton Promotions and a boxing man - I doubt he spends all days doing the books, printing the posters and making the teas; he's there to set the direction of the company any delegate the grunt work to people better suited to doing it) that hasn't at least given it a little tickle.

Flip me, there's a lot of sanctimonious bollocks being written on here. Much of it, I suspect, by people who would regard going out and drinking until they fall down/throw up/fall down and throw up as all good clean fun. Which it is by the way, as long as you aren't doing it every bloody night...

If Ricky really is doing "industrial amounts" of ching, then I'm glad he's taking steps to sort out his personal demons and I wish him all the luck in the world. I dunno if he is - I've never met him, and you will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of those that sell out their 'friends' to the gutter press as gospel.

And if Ricky's a light recreational user who's checked into the priory on his PR agency's advice to get the hypocritical pondscum that make up our glorious taploid press of his back, then I also wish him all the luck in the world.

I have no idea why people think that alcohol and narcotics are somehow the same. It's an easy argument to say, "well, if alcohol's legal, so should be cocaine." But it's also an incredibly lazy and ill considered argument.

To utterly stupefy yourself on cocaine is morally synonymous with utterly stupefying yourself on alcohol, but that doesn't mean alcohol and cocaine are the same. Alcohol is a substance that need not be stupefying: millions of people drink it every day without any noticeable affect. Indeed, it is thought that in smaller quantities it is almost certainly healthy to drink. Meantime, it is possible to drink alcohol because one likes the flavour, and certianly a significant portion (most?) people who drink don't do it with the express intention of getting intoxicated. None of these things can be said about cocaine. It is taken specifically for its intoxicating affect. It is not possible to just take small amounts and not feel any affect (indeed, why would you want to?) There are no real health benefits, and indeed, beyond those whose lives have been seriously affected by addiction, those who have had cocaine related strokes and heart attacks, or who have drank far more alcohol than their body could have handled without cocaine, will attest to the health risks.

Just because you or your mates haven't had problems, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that out to everyone.

Which brings us on to something else: We forget that these drugs were banned for a reason. Cocaine wasn't banned because the government didn't want us to have fun, but because it is an extremely dangerous drug, both in terms of the health dangers, and its addictiveness. Further, the damage caused to society by addicts was large.

Of course, the last paragraph is true of alcohol, but it is impossible to ban alcohol without affecting the majority, who drink without total inebriation, or who drink for the taste. But to say that alcohol is totally legal and free is not true. Those who sell it must have a licence, for which they must fulfil certain criteria and accept certain monitoring. The times at which it can be sold are (or were until recently) tightly controlled. I remember when I was young that pubs closed during the afternoon, for instance, and then closed for good at 11pm. No all nighters.

Further, it's not true to say that we have strict prohibition of drugs here. There may be in the law, but de facto, we simply don't. I mean, are the police arresting Ricky for being caught red handed? Nope. Would they if they'd had a video of a celebrity stealing? Or beating up someone? Or committing any other crime? Yes. You just try to get arrested for carrying or smoking marijuana. It's next to impossible.

Nice post Carbo, not to mention the obvious mess left behind in the countries that produce cocaine. I won't be a hypocrite and claim to have never tried it, but the constant claims that it is no worse than alcohol are inaccurate as you have explained

[rhino222]

lets also remember that the majority of drugs are progressive..... most coke users have been on the weed sometime someplace, most herion users have been on the coke...sometime someplace.....etc etc etc

[Srebmun]

I think I live in a completely different reality to most people. The reality that I live in, most people have tried cocaine and lots of people take it for recreational purposes without being 'junkies' or needing to go into rehab. Yes it's illegal, but personally I think the drug laws are archaic and outdated, cause more harm than good and need reforming. It's ridiculous to demonise people for taking drugs- it's no different to having a go at people for smoking or going down the pub. I know plenty of people who have screwed up on booze just as I know plenty of people who have screwed up on drugs, but I just as I would never just write off somebody who had been out on the p*ss as an alcoholic so I would not automatically write off as a junkie someone who took the occasional gram on a Saturday night. It's nuts. If he'd run someone over driving like a pr*ck, bashed his wife or raped some unsuspecting groupie then I'd be with all the haters, but this seems to be more of a case of people attacking something they don't really understand. Get with the program, grandads.

^^ this, 100%

[DavidPayne]

I think I live in a completely different reality to most people. The reality that I live in, most people have tried cocaine and lots of people take it for recreational purposes without being 'junkies' or needing to go into rehab. Yes it's illegal, but personally I think the drug laws are archaic and outdated, cause more harm than good and need reforming. It's ridiculous to demonise people for taking drugs- it's no different to having a go at people for smoking or going down the pub. I know plenty of people who have screwed up on booze just as I know plenty of people who have screwed up on drugs, but I just as I would never just write off somebody who had been out on the p*ss as an alcoholic so I would not automatically write off as a junkie someone who took the occasional gram on a Saturday night. It's nuts. If he'd run someone over driving like a pr*ck, bashed his wife or raped some unsuspecting groupie then I'd be with all the haters, but this seems to be more of a case of people attacking something they don't really understand. Get with the program, grandads.

If you have always slagged off Hatton for his drinking (personally I have always disliked his arrogance around this- you can't go out drinking twenty pints and expect to beat Floyd Mayweather) then I respect your right to have a go. But anybody who is moaning about Hatton having a sniff while in training, and citing steroid users such as Mosley and Roy Jones as examples. well clearly you've never taken it. After a night out on the charley the last thing you want to do is train. Your timing's off, you're anxious and spaced out. It certainly isn't a performance enhancer. Well, guys out on the piss who've been sniffing THINK they can fight and are more aggressive. They're definitely a lot harder to knock out... Of course! There's your evidence right there! Hatton is IMPOSSIBLE to knock out! Hang on...

Grandad Payne here. The reaity I live in is, most people haven't. Which is real?

[Srebmun]

Not what he asked though, is it. Besides the fact that I know quite a few successful self-made types who've indulged (and often over indulged) in recreational drugs, the man asked how many rich people who've tried it, not how many entrepreneurs. I can't think of anyone I know with money in their pocket and time on their hands (Ricky is the head of Hatton Promotions and a boxing man - I doubt he spends all days doing the books, printing the posters and making the teas; he's there to set the direction of the company any delegate the grunt work to people better suited to doing it) that hasn't at least given it a little tickle.

Flip me, there's a lot of sanctimonious bollocks being written on here. Much of it, I suspect, by people who would regard going out and drinking until they fall down/throw up/fall down and throw up as all good clean fun. Which it is by the way, as long as you aren't doing it every bloody night...

If Ricky really is doing "industrial amounts" of ching, then I'm glad he's taking steps to sort out his personal demons and I wish him all the luck in the world. I dunno if he is - I've never met him, and you will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of those that sell out their 'friends' to the gutter press as gospel.

And if Ricky's a light recreational user who's checked into the priory on his PR agency's advice to get the hypocritical pondscum that make up our glorious taploid press of his back, then I also wish him all the luck in the world.

I have no idea why people think that alcohol and narcotics are somehow the same. It's an easy argument to say, "well, if alcohol's legal, so should be cocaine." But it's also an incredibly lazy and ill considered argument.

To utterly stupefy yourself on cocaine is morally synonymous with utterly stupefying yourself on alcohol, but that doesn't mean alcohol and cocaine are the same. Alcohol is a substance that need not be stupefying: millions of people drink it every day without any noticeable affect. Indeed, it is thought that in smaller quantities it is almost certainly healthy to drink. Meantime, it is possible to drink alcohol because one likes the flavour, and certianly a significant portion (most?) people who drink don't do it with the express intention of getting intoxicated. None of these things can be said about cocaine. It is taken specifically for its intoxicating affect. It is not possible to just take small amounts and not feel any affect (indeed, why would you want to?) There are no real health benefits, and indeed, beyond those whose lives have been seriously affected by addiction, those who have had cocaine related strokes and heart attacks, or who have drank far more alcohol than their body could have handled without cocaine, will attest to the health risks.

Just because you or your mates haven't had problems, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that out to everyone.

Which brings us on to something else: We forget that these drugs were banned for a reason. Cocaine wasn't banned because the government didn't want us to have fun, but because it is an extremely dangerous drug, both in terms of the health dangers, and its addictiveness. Further, the damage caused to society by addicts was large.

Of course, the last paragraph is true of alcohol, but it is impossible to ban alcohol without affecting the majority, who drink without total inebriation, or who drink for the taste. But to say that alcohol is totally legal and free is not true. Those who sell it must have a licence, for which they must fulfil certain criteria and accept certain monitoring. The times at which it can be sold are (or were until recently) tightly controlled. I remember when I was young that pubs closed during the afternoon, for instance, and then closed for good at 11pm. No all nighters.

Further, it's not true to say that we have strict prohibition of drugs here. There may be in the law, but de facto, we simply don't. I mean, are the police arresting Ricky for being caught red handed? Nope. Would they if they'd had a video of a celebrity stealing? Or beating up someone? Or committing any other crime? Yes. You just try to get arrested for carrying or smoking marijuana. It's next to impossible.

I suggest you read some of the publications on this link going on your ridiculous post above.

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm

[Srebmun]

I think I live in a completely different reality to most people. The reality that I live in, most people have tried cocaine and lots of people take it for recreational purposes without being 'junkies' or needing to go into rehab. Yes it's illegal, but personally I think the drug laws are archaic and outdated, cause more harm than good and need reforming. It's ridiculous to demonise people for taking drugs- it's no different to having a go at people for smoking or going down the pub. I know plenty of people who have screwed up on booze just as I know plenty of people who have screwed up on drugs, but I just as I would never just write off somebody who had been out on the p*ss as an alcoholic so I would not automatically write off as a junkie someone who took the occasional gram on a Saturday night. It's nuts. If he'd run someone over driving like a pr*ck, bashed his wife or raped some unsuspecting groupie then I'd be with all the haters, but this seems to be more of a case of people attacking something they don't really understand. Get with the program, grandads.

If you have always slagged off Hatton for his drinking (personally I have always disliked his arrogance around this- you can't go out drinking twenty pints and expect to beat Floyd Mayweather) then I respect your right to have a go. But anybody who is moaning about Hatton having a sniff while in training, and citing steroid users such as Mosley and Roy Jones as examples. well clearly you've never taken it. After a night out on the charley the last thing you want to do is train. Your timing's off, you're anxious and spaced out. It certainly isn't a performance enhancer. Well, guys out on the piss who've been sniffing THINK they can fight and are more aggressive. They're definitely a lot harder to knock out... Of course! There's your evidence right there! Hatton is IMPOSSIBLE to knock out! Hang on...

Grandad Payne here. The reaity I live in is, most people haven't. Which is real?

Should those who do be demonised?

[Carbo]

Not what he asked though, is it. Besides the fact that I know quite a few successful self-made types who've indulged (and often over indulged) in recreational drugs, the man asked how many rich people who've tried it, not how many entrepreneurs. I can't think of anyone I know with money in their pocket and time on their hands (Ricky is the head of Hatton Promotions and a boxing man - I doubt he spends all days doing the books, printing the posters and making the teas; he's there to set the direction of the company any delegate the grunt work to people better suited to doing it) that hasn't at least given it a little tickle.

Flip me, there's a lot of sanctimonious bollocks being written on here. Much of it, I suspect, by people who would regard going out and drinking until they fall down/throw up/fall down and throw up as all good clean fun. Which it is by the way, as long as you aren't doing it every bloody night...

If Ricky really is doing "industrial amounts" of ching, then I'm glad he's taking steps to sort out his personal demons and I wish him all the luck in the world. I dunno if he is - I've never met him, and you will have to excuse me if I don't take the word of those that sell out their 'friends' to the gutter press as gospel.

And if Ricky's a light recreational user who's checked into the priory on his PR agency's advice to get the hypocritical pondscum that make up our glorious taploid press of his back, then I also wish him all the luck in the world.

I have no idea why people think that alcohol and narcotics are somehow the same. It's an easy argument to say, "well, if alcohol's legal, so should be cocaine." But it's also an incredibly lazy and ill considered argument.

To utterly stupefy yourself on cocaine is morally synonymous with utterly stupefying yourself on alcohol, but that doesn't mean alcohol and cocaine are the same. Alcohol is a substance that need not be stupefying: millions of people drink it every day without any noticeable affect. Indeed, it is thought that in smaller quantities it is almost certainly healthy to drink. Meantime, it is possible to drink alcohol because one likes the flavour, and certianly a significant portion (most?) people who drink don't do it with the express intention of getting intoxicated. None of these things can be said about cocaine. It is taken specifically for its intoxicating affect. It is not possible to just take small amounts and not feel any affect (indeed, why would you want to?) There are no real health benefits, and indeed, beyond those whose lives have been seriously affected by addiction, those who have had cocaine related strokes and heart attacks, or who have drank far more alcohol than their body could have handled without cocaine, will attest to the health risks.

Just because you or your mates haven't had problems, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that out to everyone.

Which brings us on to something else: We forget that these drugs were banned for a reason. Cocaine wasn't banned because the government didn't want us to have fun, but because it is an extremely dangerous drug, both in terms of the health dangers, and its addictiveness. Further, the damage caused to society by addicts was large.

Of course, the last paragraph is true of alcohol, but it is impossible to ban alcohol without affecting the majority, who drink without total inebriation, or who drink for the taste. But to say that alcohol is totally legal and free is not true. Those who sell it must have a licence, for which they must fulfil certain criteria and accept certain monitoring. The times at which it can be sold are (or were until recently) tightly controlled. I remember when I was young that pubs closed during the afternoon, for instance, and then closed for good at 11pm. No all nighters.

Further, it's not true to say that we have strict prohibition of drugs here. There may be in the law, but de facto, we simply don't. I mean, are the police arresting Ricky for being caught red handed? Nope. Would they if they'd had a video of a celebrity stealing? Or beating up someone? Or committing any other crime? Yes. You just try to get arrested for carrying or smoking marijuana. It's next to impossible.

I suggest you read some of the publications on this link going on your ridiculous post above.

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm

Rather than asking me to read tens of thousands of words of text, some of which may be relevant, some of which may not be, and somehow divine what you wanted to say from that, why don't you just make the point you want to make, and then we can take the conversation from there? If you're unable to actually make the point all by yourself, perhaps it's time to do a little reading yourself or reconsider your position.

Before you dive in, though, you may notice that I never made an argument against the liberalization of drugs, nor did I make an argument against far tougher controls than are currently enforced. What I was arguing against was, first, the equivocation of drugs with alcohol, and second, the argument that seems to go like, "I've done cocaine and it never did me no 'arm, guv'nor, so callin' it dangerous is just baloney, innit?"

[DavidPayne]

Grandad Payne here. The reaity I live in is, most people haven't. Which is real?

Should those who do be demonised?

Demonised? No. Their decision making questionned, their ability to perform in a role as mentor, manager and promoter to young fighters removed and their status as an icon of sporting achievement, endeavour and hardwork? Too fkking right.

Depression is a terrible illness. The judgement is whether it precedes the coke use or is precipitated by it is up to you.

Being a role model is a fkker. Its a life-long undertaking. You may elect not to live by its unwritten rules, fine, but if you don't, don't moan when its pet privilidges are removed. Like being welcomed into the hearts and front rooms of millions of middle of the road Janet and Johns who haven't stuck shit up their hooter as a normal weekend occurance.

In 7-10 years time my five month old son might start having an interest in boxing; "wanting to be like Ricky Hatton" doesn't have the same ring to it as it did a year ago does it? You can't be the likes-a-pint, adored by everyone, from kids to grannies, boy next door, jovial, lad struck gold, warm-hearted funstar and be on the Carlos Maussa-Talcum Powda every night.

Like Rhino said, this has been an open secret for months.

Like being a role-model - depression is a mother fkker too. Money, a fine bit, children and success don't exclude you.

[Dioufy]

I always read the Sun, but I always bypass this spurned little girl's column. It's cancer for the eyes.

[Srebmun]

I have no idea why people think that alcohol and narcotics are somehow the same. It's an easy argument to say, "well, if alcohol's legal, so should be cocaine." But it's also an incredibly lazy and ill considered argument.

To utterly stupefy yourself on cocaine is morally synonymous with utterly stupefying yourself on alcohol, but that doesn't mean alcohol and cocaine are the same. Alcohol is a substance that need not be stupefying: millions of people drink it every day without any noticeable affect. Indeed, it is thought that in smaller quantities it is almost certainly healthy to drink. Meantime, it is possible to drink alcohol because one likes the flavour, and certianly a significant portion (most?) people who drink don't do it with the express intention of getting intoxicated. None of these things can be said about cocaine. It is taken specifically for its intoxicating affect. It is not possible to just take small amounts and not feel any affect (indeed, why would you want to?) There are no real health benefits, and indeed, beyond those whose lives have been seriously affected by addiction, those who have had cocaine related strokes and heart attacks, or who have drank far more alcohol than their body could have handled without cocaine, will attest to the health risks.

Just because you or your mates haven't had problems, doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that out to everyone.

Which brings us on to something else: We forget that these drugs were banned for a reason. Cocaine wasn't banned because the government didn't want us to have fun, but because it is an extremely dangerous drug, both in terms of the health dangers, and its addictiveness. Further, the damage caused to society by addicts was large.

Of course, the last paragraph is true of alcohol, but it is impossible to ban alcohol without affecting the majority, who drink without total inebriation, or who drink for the taste. But to say that alcohol is totally legal and free is not true. Those who sell it must have a licence, for which they must fulfil certain criteria and accept certain monitoring. The times at which it can be sold are (or were until recently) tightly controlled. I remember when I was young that pubs closed during the afternoon, for instance, and then closed for good at 11pm. No all nighters.

Further, it's not true to say that we have strict prohibition of drugs here. There may be in the law, but de facto, we simply don't. I mean, are the police arresting Ricky for being caught red handed? Nope. Would they if they'd had a video of a celebrity stealing? Or beating up someone? Or committing any other crime? Yes. You just try to get arrested for carrying or smoking marijuana. It's next to impossible.

I suggest you read some of the publications on this link going on your ridiculous post above.

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_Publications.htm

Rather than asking me to read tens of thousands of words of text, some of which may be relevant, some of which may not be, and somehow divine what you wanted to say from that, why don't you just make the point you want to make, and then we can take the conversation from there? If you're unable to actually make the point all by yourself, perhaps it's time to do a little reading yourself or reconsider your position.

Before you dive in, though, you may notice that I never made an argument against the liberalization of drugs, nor did I make an argument against far tougher controls than are currently enforced. What I was arguing against was, first, the equivocation of drugs with alcohol, and second, the argument that seems to go like, "I've done cocaine and it never did me no 'arm, guv'nor, so callin' it dangerous is just baloney, innit?"

Of course there should be an equivocation of 'drugs' and alcohol due to the harm they both cause, they are indexable. Yes most people can enjoy a tipple and enjoy the taste, the same can apply for cocaine believe it or not - the object for everyone is not just to get twatted, with alcohol what of the 8 or 9 thousand people a year who die because of alcohol abuse? what about the carnage within A&E or the 20billion spent each year dealing with alcohold related incidents.

If cocaine was used by the same ammount of people as alcohol is, and was abused as alcohol is, we'd be fucked as a society, but cocaine will never EVER be used to the same degree, thus it will never cause the same carnage in our society that alcohol will. This will never happen.

Your last line is blasé, to say the least. Not everyone has that attitude, it's a suckers attitude, as is MachoMan's stupid post (ever seen a club full of drunks Machoman) which followed yours.

To differentiate substances cos one is a drug and one is alcohol and ingrained in society is utterly utterly ridiculous.

[Carbo]

Grandad Payne here. The reaity I live in is, most people haven't. Which is real?

Should those who do be demonised?

Demonised? No. Their decision making questionned, their ability to perform in a role as mentor, manager and promoter to young fighters removed and their status as an icon of sporting achievement, endeavour and hardwork? Too fkking right.

Depression is a terrible illness. The judgement is whether it precedes the coke use or is precipitated by it is up to you.

Being a role model is a fkker. Its a life-long undertaking. You may elect not to live by its unwritten rules, fine, but if you don't, don't moan when its pet privilidges are removed. Like being welcomed into the hearts and front rooms of millions of middle of the road Janet and Johns who haven't stuck poop up their hooter as a normal weekend occurance.

In 7-10 years time my five month old son might start having an interest in boxing; "wanting to be like Ricky Hatton" doesn't have the same ring to it as it did a year ago does it? You can't be the likes-a-pint, adored by everyone, from kids to grannies, boy next door, jovial, lad struck gold, warm-hearted funstar and be on the Carlos Maussa-Talcum Powda every night.

Like Rhino said, this has been an open secret for months.

Like being a role-model - depression is a mother fkker too. Money, a fine bit, children and success don't exclude you.

Quite right.

On a side note, just because people like something, and just because an activity as commonplace, doesn't make it ok or something that should necessarily be condoned. I'm not making an argument either way in terms of drug use, but the argument that everyone does it, or the argument that "well, I really like it, so..." are both pretty poor logically and morally.

[Srebmun]

Should those who do be demonised?

Demonised? No. Their decision making questionned, their ability to perform in a role as mentor, manager and promoter to young fighters removed and their status as an icon of sporting achievement, endeavour and hardwork? Too fkking right.

Depression is a terrible illness. The judgement is whether it precedes the coke use or is precipitated by it is up to you.

Being a role model is a fkker. Its a life-long undertaking. You may elect not to live by its unwritten rules, fine, but if you don't, don't moan when its pet privilidges are removed. Like being welcomed into the hearts and front rooms of millions of middle of the road Janet and Johns who haven't stuck poop up their hooter as a normal weekend occurance.

In 7-10 years time my five month old son might start having an interest in boxing; "wanting to be like Ricky Hatton" doesn't have the same ring to it as it did a year ago does it? You can't be the likes-a-pint, adored by everyone, from kids to grannies, boy next door, jovial, lad struck gold, warm-hearted funstar and be on the Carlos Maussa-Talcum Powda every night.

Like Rhino said, this has been an open secret for months.

Like being a role-model - depression is a mother fkker too. Money, a fine bit, children and success don't exclude you.

Quite right.

On a side note, just because people like something, and just because an activity as commonplace, doesn't make it ok or something that should necessarily be condoned. I'm not making an argument either way in terms of drug use, but the argument that everyone does it, or the argument that "well, I really like it, so..." are both pretty poor logically and morally.

Completely agree, but I'm sure you know it's not everyones arguement??

[Srebmun]

Grandad Payne here. The reaity I live in is, most people haven't. Which is real?

Should those who do be demonised?

Demonised? No. Their decision making questionned, their ability to perform in a role as mentor, manager and promoter to young fighters removed and their status as an icon of sporting achievement, endeavour and hardwork? Too fkking right.

Depression is a terrible illness. The judgement is whether it precedes the coke use or is precipitated by it is up to you.

Being a role model is a fkker. Its a life-long undertaking. You may elect not to live by its unwritten rules, fine, but if you don't, don't moan when its pet privilidges are removed. Like being welcomed into the hearts and front rooms of millions of middle of the road Janet and Johns who haven't stuck poop up their hooter as a normal weekend occurance.

In 7-10 years time my five month old son might start having an interest in boxing; "wanting to be like Ricky Hatton" doesn't have the same ring to it as it did a year ago does it? You can't be the likes-a-pint, adored by everyone, from kids to grannies, boy next door, jovial, lad struck gold, warm-hearted funstar and be on the Carlos Maussa-Talcum Powda every night.

Like Rhino said, this has been an open secret for months.

Like being a role-model - depression is a mother fkker too. Money, a fine bit, children and success don't exclude you.

So it's OK to get plastered on booze, but a cardinal sin to enjoy a line of coke - why is that exactly?

[DavidPayne]

Neither is ideal, all shades of grey. I know where you're trying to take me but you wont get me there. Is alcohol more or less addictive than coke?

[Carbo]

Of course there should be an equivocation of 'drugs' and alcohol due to the harm they both cause, they are indexable. Yes most people can enjoy a tipple and enjoy the taste, the same can apply for cocaine believe it or not - the object for everyone is not just to get twatted, with alcohol what of the 8 or 9 thousand people a year who die because of alcohol abuse? what about the carnage within A&E or the 20billion spent each year dealing with alcohold related incidents.

Not true at all.

First, it's laughable that people "can" enjoy cocaine for the taste or for some other pleasure other than the affect of the drug itself. What taste? Or do you mean people like that feeling of particles going up their nose? Why don't they snort finely ground salt, then? It's simply preposterous. I'm not saying it is morally wrong, but people take cocaine with the sole objective of the affects of the drug. Simple as that. The same is not true of alcohol.

Second, the point is not the harm caused, but the purpose of taking it. Cocaine is taken for no other reason than its affects, and is therefore quite different from alcohol -- in most cases -- or, say, sugary food. It's a bit like when people say that more people die in motor sports than in boxing, and that this is a good argument in favour of boxing. But the purpose of motor sports is not to inflict damage to the brain, rather, it's a potential side effect. It's true that some people abuse alcohol where, like cocaine, it is used as a means of getting drunk, rather than drunkardness as a side affect, but these people are demonised and ostracised by society and there are laws and restrictions on alcohol sale and distribution to minimize this.

Third, using raw figures in this case is utterly irrelevant. So many more people drink so much more alcohol than take cocaine, that saying that more people are harmed by, or more money is spent on, alcohol abuse than cocaine related issues is rather like saying that a person earning a million pounds a year should pay less tax because he currently pays hundreds of times more than a poor person.

Finally, arguing that alcohol causes loads of damage and costs the tax payer loads of money is an argument for restricting alcohol usage, not legalizing equally or potentially more damaging drugs.

If cocaine was used by the same ammount of people as alcohol is, and was abused as alcohol is, we'd be fucked as a society, but cocaine will never EVER be used to the same degree, thus it will never cause the same carnage in our society that alcohol will. This will never happen.

Why do you think it will never happen? It it was as readily available as alcohol, and was legal, and became as accepted by society, what possible argument have you for saying its usage wouldn't go up? Countries which have liberalised drug usage have invariably seen drug usage rise. Given that you admit it would be disastrous for society to see that, what justification do you have for liberalization?

Your last line is blasé, to say the least. Not everyone has that attitude, it's a suckers attitude, as is MachoMan's stupid post (ever seen a club full of drunks Machoman) which followed yours.

To differentiate substances cos one is a drug and one is alcohol and ingrained in society is utterly utterly ridiculous.

Fair enough.

But you have to admit that (1) many people seem to think that because they and/or people they know enjoy it, (2) because they and/or people they know have not died, wound up in hospital or become addicted, and (3) because loads of people want to do it, it should therefore be legalized.

Apologies if you haven't made such craven and weak arguments, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been made.

Again, I have made no statement to say I'm personally in favour or against the liberalization of drugs, or in favour of tougher implementation. I'm just trying to point out the weaker arguments in favour of liberalizations. There are actually pretty good ones, but they're not based on comparisons to alcohol.

[Srebmun]

Neither is ideal, all shades of grey. I know where you're trying to take me but you wont get me there. Is alcohol more or less addictive than coke?

That's not what I'm asking you. You make the point it's alright to be the lad next door, drinking etc.. but it's not Ok to enjoy a line of coke.

Addiciton aside, why is one OK and the other isn't?

By the way, I'm not a user nor a liberal reform merchant. I think it's a very important subject and when role models are in the media for it why is there always the approach Hatton has now taken, i.e. let everyone down, yet him going on those massive drink benders aren't an issue.