As of the 23rd of December this year a raft of previously legal highs will come under the umbrella of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In the new amendment compounds containing or derived from benzylpiperazine or BZP will considered class C drugs along with GBL, which is also being made a controlled substance while synthetic canabanoids used in the production of Spice will be categorised class B.

Alan Johnson, the current Home Secretary and former Secretary of State for Health stated that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACDM) found that the substances have an unpredictable effect on health, he went on; “The perception is that [unscheduled chemical stimulants] are harmless, however, in some cases people can be ingesting dangerous industrial fluids or smoking chemicals that can be even more harmful than cannabis.” He says this despite there being little medical consensus on exactly how harmful cannabis is on the human body, some professionals believe that cannabis is no more dangerous than socially acceptable drugs, such as alcohol.

John Ramsay, toxicologist at St. Georges University, London points out that little is known about the side effects of legal highs and unscheduled chemical preparations such as mephedrone, known as meow, or GBL ,a compound primarily used as an industrial solvent, beyond anecdotal evidence by users due to the nature of the law as it currently exists. If users of any synthetic narcotic are admitted to hospital they are reticent to reveal what products, quantities and combinations of drugs, synthetics and legal highs they have ingested. A way around current legislation as it stands against synthetic narcotics is to state on the packaging that it is not for human consumption but plant food, for example. Where the product is not illegal or designed for human consumption then the data regarding its effects whether in unison with other illegal drugs or alcohol for example isn't collected. The government's response to the current situation is to legislate against compounds once they have come under media scrutiny which, rather than diminish the use of the synthetic, simply force less reputable manufacturers to design new methods of synthesis which weren't covered by the latest legislation. As a result the new synthetics remain unknown to the law, untested by pharmaceutical researchers and the data uncollected by the medical community. This lack of information means that the effects in conjunction with legitimate medication also remains unknown, as well as possible long term physical, psychological damage or being responsible for birth defects et cetera.

The legislation which comes into force this year is, rather typically in the 'War on Drugs,' seems like an over reaction following media prompting regarding synthetic narcotics for which the media uses the shorthand 'legal high', not recognising the distinction between and lumping together the misuse of industrial chemicals and the legitimate use of products made for human consumption.

Perhaps it would be wiser to investigate the effects of legal highs and unscheduled chemicals to recognise their place in the recreational lives of people in the 21st century rather than adapt legislation which is nearly 40 years old, written long before many of these products were concocted. Taking this approach would allow for medical and pharmaceutical investigation leading to the recognition of particular trusted compounds or formulations. Manufacturers would be encouraged to submit their products for testing leading to medical and governmental approval. This would guarantee both the efficacy and the safety of the ingredients used in the creation of products designed to imitate the effects of particular stimulants and hallucinogenics. However, due to the moral bias and draconian nature of British legislation regrading drugs and modern synthetic recreational products, this approach is unlikely. Evidence of the intolerant outlook held by the legislators is given by the sacking of Professor David Nutt, Drug advisor to the British government, who, while not advocating de-criminalisation of cannabis, pointed out that it wasn't necessarily more dangerous than alcohol. This view, contrary to the government's policy lead him to being relieved of his advisory role, proving that policy isn't based on informed debate but upon the moral prejudices of those charged with protecting society from itself.

So Kate Moss says “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels” and once again we’re treated to tabloid OUTRAGE as super skinny models make young girls anorexic. Except Kate isn’t that thin any more & the problem of obesity is far more common and threatening more lives in the west than a few demented girls taking skipping lunch to its illogical conclusion.

It’s easy to blame slender models for the apparent increase in childhood anorexia and eating disorders as well as body dysmorphia but that’s simply shooting at the most obvious target until you actually look a little deeper.

Designers use extremely thin models for their haute couture ranges and runway shows it’s true but what girls are interested in high end fashion when their pocket money will barely stretch to buying more than a few bits from Primark, let alone titles such as Vogue or Harpers?

It’s still more or less acceptable in many areas to point and laugh at fatties trundling down the street and the very fat are something of a curiosity, they draw our attention whether we like to admit it or not. Our governments try to tell us to eat healthily and everyone knows that to have a slender body is to have a healthy body but the message is not getting across. In a recent survey in Scotland it was revealed that some parents thought that a can of Coke or a bag of chips counted toward their ‘five a day’- a programme set up by central government to get people eating at least 5 pieces of fruit or vegetables every day.

While the powers that be are trying to convince us that obesity is becoming an epidemic and yet information is so thin on the ground is it any surprise that children are confusing the message and becoming dangerously thin while there’s a constant soundtrack murmuring ‘Britain’s getting fatter, loose more weight’?

Much as we need to stop blaming the overweight for their own failings when it comes to moderate portion sizes we should also stop blaming the thin for promoting the idea of thinness as ideal. By the very nature of their title models have bodies that others strive toward. Models shouldn’t be the spokespeople for any agenda, they’re there to look pretty. If you’ve ever been caught in conversation with a model you’ll know it’s almost, but not quite as soul destroying as time spent with an actor or musician, the more successful they are the more vapid, insular, self delusional and short sighted -in terms of world view- they become, hardly a great ambassador for any cause and certainly not for something as important as the younger generation’s long term health.

Fortunately Santa prefers to come down the chimney he won't be too concerned about the Movement for The Containment of Xmas supergluing the locks of Leeds charity shops.

In August this year it was possible to walk into Selfridges or Harrods and brows their shelves for all your next Christmas purchases, yes, on the hottest day of the year you could buy a nice woolly sweater with a reindeer on it while Jonah Louie was, as every year, unable to stop the cavalry. Since the merchandising and commercialisation is unremitting it is unsurprising that some people are finally feeling spurred to action, demanding that shops curtail their avarice until September.

The Headingley branch of Mind, a mental health charity, had its locks damaged with superglue. Fixing the locks cost a hundred pounds while the store had only made fifty from the sale of this year's range of greetings cards. However, many people complain that summer's barely over before Christmas ranges begin appearing in the shops, that it spoils the festival and cheapens the whole event. It's difficult to feel 'Christmassy' on the day when you've had Slade and mince pies thrust down your throat for more than three months.

Charity shop workers in Leeds say they are feeling bullied, even 'terrorised' by the Movement for the Containment of Xmas, it's unknown whether the group is made up of Christians who want the festival observed for it's religious significance, atheists who resent having an imaginary superhero's birthday shoved at them for a quarter of every year or simply consumers who are sick of corporations trying without shame to constantly chisel every last penny out of their pockets.

Some commentators have pointed out that, for surface mail, the last posting date for some places is mid-September. That may be true but how many people, do you suppose, will be sending Season's Greetings overland to their best friend who happens to live at the source of the Congo? Surely it can't be economic to dedicate shelf space to a celebration that isn't going to happen for twelve weeks or more. It builds resentment in consumers who probably aren't buying the product, people moan but very rarely take direct action. While we shouldn't condone the actions of the M.C.X. after all, attacking charities consumes donations made for the vulnerable, we should sympathise with an organisation that wants to keep Christmas special.

Who do you love best, cats or dogs?

What is the difference between cats and dogs & the people that own them?

While dogs understand the pack cats understand social hierarchy, they also perceive themselves to be at its apex. Dogs really do love you, the walks you take them on and bones, however, cats tolerate you to live in their houses so long as you have a warm lap and understand how to operate a tin opener.

A social contract has been established between humans and their feline overlords, an understanding also developed between us and our canine slaves, but, in the same way our relationship with cats works, they don't appreciate that they are getting the dirty end of the stick! Dogs are frequently regarded as toys or 'little furry people', they can be dressed up & played with, pulled about and cuddled, cats resent the impertinence of the suggestion of any kind of familiar relationship and have too much self respect to get involved in any of these monkey-tricks; they will quickly skedaddle at the first sign of a six year old bearing down on them proffering a baby-gro. The contract we had with cats when we welcomed these animals into our domiciles was to provide them with a mouse-rich environment which was warm and dry; free lodging and all the mice you can eat for as long as you can eat them. After that, if the cat was good, the humans might keep it on out of having become accustomed to having it around. Dogs could be trained to work, and as workers, could insinuate themselves into human society. Their pack mentality also seemed similar to human social interaction which meant that they could easily be subject to anthropomorphizing thus enabling them to become 'part of the family'. Dogs are happy to treat the human family as their own pack and understand their place in it, they are perfectly capable of eating the same food and able to obey instructions, even responding to their own name! (as Eliot wrote in Practical Cats, the cat has a secret name, you don't know it, don't even bother.)

In recent work carried out by Dr Karen McComb of the University of Sussex cats that live in a home with a single human learn to embed a trill which acts on the subconscious in the same way as a baby's cry; it makes the hearer want to help it. In this animal to human verbal communication cats have learned to give us the sensation of pleasure at obeying their will. Whereas dogs will beg at table or bark and whine until they get what they want or a slipper thrown at them depending on the human's mood, a cat will purr to tell its human “You're making me happy;” and then add that little chirp which tells us “but you know it'd make both of us so much happier if you get the hell up & gave me some milk!”

It's something of a truism that dogs see the relationship between themselves and us as “they give me food and shelter, they must be gods” while a cat's perception is more “they give me food and shelter, I must be god” (although how a dog perceives the human passion for tying it to a rope & then following after it with a plastic bag must be wondered at).

But what of the people who keep cats and dogs in their homes? Dog owners can't see the attraction of keeping a cat, they don't fetch sticks, they don't display boundless enthusiasm for long walks across forest and fell, they can't guard the house and if you ever tried to get a cat to help the blind... A recipe for disaster.

Cat owners (I should really say hosts but we like to maintain the notion of mastery) can't often see the point of dogs; labour intensive, noisy, and often over-energetic while they are young and astonishingly kickable if badly trained. I know there's no such thing as a badly trained dog, just a badly trained owner but if you kicked the keeper their canine accessories would bite your leg.

Dog lovers see cats as aloof and condescending to human society, This is what I think cat lovers see in their furry housemates, they like to identify with their independence and inscrutability. Cats love the dark and play on having an air of mystery yet, of course, they have their playful side. Yes their playfulness manifests itself as tearing small fluffy toys to shreds but wouldn't you rather that than a bull mastiff taking a playful shine to your new shoes?

A cat person will see the dog lover as rather naïve, the dog only behaves in a loving fashion because that's what it has evolved to do, it's simply paying a kind of rent to the pack. Or, to look at it another way, when in the forces you may despise a particular officer but you still salute as it's the rank you respect (plus it's twenty eight days in the guardhouse if you don't do what's expected).

It seems that the argument on who is right, cat people or dog people is intransigent. You will never really get them to agree on anything. At first sight this is true anyway, however, should you ever get the two of them in a room together there is one way to make them agree on something; introduce someone who doesn't like animals.

I just signed up!

welcome me eh? I thought I should write something & then see what the whole shibang looks like.