Lying with integrity.

Yesterday, for the first time in years, i watched Coronation Street!

So..today i thought that i would bring up lying following Becky's confession to Amy.

If you missed it then what briefly happened is this:

A lad from Amy's school told Amy that her mum is a murderer, which she didn't know

Becky had to go and pick her up and she asked Becky if it was true.

Feeling that she shouldn't be lied to any longer, Becky admitted that she is.

Her and Steve had a huge argument and Becky left.

I agreed with Becky.

From personal experience i know that lying does more damage than good. Lying betrays a persons trust and that trust takes a long time to be re-gained.

My mum always used to tell me that 'there is no point in lying because liars always get found out' and that i should 'always tell the truth even if i know she won't like it'

Personally, this is some of the best advice she has ever given me.

Lying is a vicious circle. To be a good liar, you have to have a good memory, and once a lie is told, it is almost inevitable that many more will have to be invented to cover up the original lie. Many liars only deceive people to get their own way, which makes it a very selfish and sometimes unforgivable act.

The only time that i condone lying is to protect a child that is not able to fully understand the truth, and ONLY if learning the truth could be damaging to the child.

In all other situations the truth should always be told, even if it hurts.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/confront_a_liar/public/pathological-compulsive.html

Check out the link above to investigate types of liars and how to confront them.

Personally, a liar is a liar, whether its pathological, compulsive whatever.

Honesty is always the best policy and lies should only be told in exceptional circumstances.

Response to Sharon Meeley's view on dole dossers.

I have got to say, fair play to you for bringing this issue up. I did actually consider it but i thought that it may offend too many people, being a current trend and all!

http://selhurst62-beingbad.blogspot.com/

Your views on this subject are extremely similar to my own. I too think it is a disgrace that there are some members of our society that have never worked a day in their life.

Honestly though, it's too easy. Why go out into the world and work hard, when you can get it for nothing? There is not enough incentive to work in this country and that is the problem.

I am afraid to say that young girls seem to be some of the worst offenders. They have a child young, to gain benefits and housing. When this benefit look set to dry up, they do the same again, deliberately so that they do not have to work.

I understand that people make mistakes, and i do not begrudge anyone getting state support that they genuinely need. I DO have a problem with how easily the system can be manipulated and the people that do so.

Check out the BBC's report on benefit fraud, for a slap in the face for all those tax- payers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7494242.stm

What irritates me the most is foreign immigrants who come here, having paid nothing into the system and never work a day in their life here. What makes this worse is that now the recession is here, many of them are returning home, clearly proving that they were only here to milk the benefits system.

It truly makes me sick that the hard-working people in this country pay for those who, quite clearly, can't be bothered. It also makes me sick how soft the Government are with these people.

I have always been bought up to earn a living and always taught that nothing in life is free.

Therefore it makes me sick that the Government provide a comfortable lifestyle for these lazy people and continue to screw over the working class citizens who actually contribute to the economy. Pure and utter disgrace. Thanks again to Sharon for having the bottle to bring this topic up, i completely agree with you.

Obesity.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Obesity/Pages/Factsaboutobesity.aspx

So obesity is the developed world's biggest health problem, with 9,000 deaths a year in England caused by it according to the NHS (link above).

Being obese leads to more serious health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and even infertility.

So with all these risks, why are 2/3 of UK adults considered over weight or obese?

Food can be used as a comfort. When someone experiences a painful event, their relationship with food changes. They eat less or they 'comfort eat'.

Also, food is a sociable element, therefore eating in groups is encouraged.

To maintain a healthy weight, it is not difficult to work out that you need a healthy diet and exercise. What annoys me, is all these silly dieting ideas produced by women's magazines, which continuously claim that certain foods help you lose weight etc.

This is so ridiculous because they only way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. Not difficult. Yet when these magazines and celebrities confuse the facts about food, it becomes understandable that people are finding it more difficult to understand the concept of a 'balanced diet'.

Food can be a serious addiction, for example, chocolate contains 'mood lifting' properties, which help a person feel better, caffeine helps us feel more awake and sugar gives us more energy.

However, the effects of these foods can be damaging if they aren't monitored. They will store as fat and clog up arteries.

Exercise releases endorphins, which make us happy, yet finding the motivation to exercise is much harder than finding the motivation to eat a Mars bar.

Obesity is a slippery slope, what begins as a treat turns into an addiction.

Also, losing weight is generally much harder than gaining it.

Although i don't think it is acceptable for someone to let themselves get ridiculously big, i can understand how easily it is done.

Therfore; allowing a child to eat an unhealthy diet from day to day is unacceptable.

If adulta allow themselves to become obese then that is their fault. They will generally understand how food works and have no excuse for it. However, most children are not aware of the dangers of unhealthy food and find it difficult to distinguish between healthy and fatty food. All parents should teach their children about food, control their diet and encourage them to do exercise. If this fails then the obesity epidemic will continue for years to come and cost the NHS stupid amounts of money.

Child Abuse.

<<<

A topic that sickens me, and one that serves no purpose.

So there is four types of child abuse:

Physical, mental, sexual and child neglect.

All sickening, and all unnecessary.

To me, there is no excuse for child abuse it is a cowardly and unacceptable act of pure evil.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/your_kids/safety_abuse.shtml)

According to the BBC, one child dies every week in England and Wales from physical abuse, and shockingly babies are five times more likely to be killed than all other ages.

How can someone hurt a creature so small and defenceless? This just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I understand that parenting can be stressful and demanding but really, it's a child, it doesn't understand what it is doing, it must learn, and it deserves a chance in life.

Why would someone rather hurt or even kill a child rather than have it adopted?

What motives are there behind committing such a despicable offence? It is the feeling of power?

Or is it knowing that the child will not retaliate?

This really is something i just can't comprehend.

Have a read of this, for something totally unforgivable, the case of Baby P.

(www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5140511.ece)

Any ideas anyone?

Comment and addition to Gill Jatinder's post on suicide.

http://jina20.blogspot.com/

I agree that suicide is a form of bad behaviour and it is a subject that many people find difficult to discuss as it is hard to understand, so I'm glad you bought it up.

http://www.therapistfinder.com/c_suicide.cfm

This really is a horrible subject and one i am unsure about myself, having never suffered with severe depression myself. The website above is designed to help friends and relatives cope when losing a loved one to suicide.

The reason for suicide seems to be the relief from the pain they are experiencing in this life.
It really saddens me to think that there are people who are hurting so much that they feel the only way out is to take their own life.Suicide used to be most common in older people, as they were more prone to 'triggers' such as loneliness and losing a loved one.However, it is now most common in young men.

I used to think that suicide was the cowards way out, especially when it was committed by people who had done something badly wrong in their life and had their future prospects taken away. After thinking about this in more detail, to commit suicide takes real guts, as nobody knows what exists after death, and what exists could be far worse, so to enter the unknown is a very brave act.

Although, i do understand that some people may be so severely depressed or mentally ill that they do not understand what they are about to do, or somehow think it is a good idea.
It is so sad when people end their lives due to things that could have been resolved, such as divorce, bullying or bankruptcy.
Even worse though, is the roller coaster of emotions faced by their relatives and friends after their death. As the website above points out, they feel guilt, anger and isolation. I think it's hard enough to deal with the death of a loved one, without knowing that they actually chose to take their own life for reasons we may not even understand.

This really is a tricky subject, and one that truly is sad.

In conclusion, it is great that people who feel suicidal can now get proper help from charitable organisations such as the Samaritans. It must be a really hard job and the people who volunteer to help should be given medals.

Comment on Jordan Smith's views towards capital punishment.

http://writingfromdesolationrow.blogspot.com/

I totally disagree with your view on this subject.

I do admit that killing a person guilty of a murder is 'uncivilised' but I'm afraid to say that, in this day and age, we have to enforce more severe punishments to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

Check out this link, a report by the BBC stating that new changes in murder case punishments could see some murderers out in less than 10 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3671752.stm

With changes like this, it isn't surprising that murder is becoming more common.

If capital punishment came back, i bet any money that murder rates would dramatically fall in the first year of it's introduction.

People are no longer afraid of going to jail. As political correctness has gone crazy, prisons are more like a home from home. The Guardian states, "Prison is no longer a deterrent. It is merely an occupational hazard." Drug dealers and prostitutes come and go as they please, breakfast in bed, TV, free phones and wages are other comfortable advantages. Clearly, crime DOES pay.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/25/prisonsandprobation.justice)

If potential criminals were faced with something really frightening, such as, the loss of their life, there is no way they would commit the crime.

I do accept that in some cases a misjudgement would be highly immoral, and that it is hard to assess the full extent of a crime and the difficulties faced when determining which crime should warrant a death sentence. But even the slightest chance of receiving the death penalty would scare these cowardly criminals so much they would refrain from committing such offences.

It really is about time that Britain toughened up, we are such a soft country that some immigrants deliberately come here to go to our jails because they are just doss houses.

Bring back the death penalty, bring down crime and empty out the jails so we can start punishing other crimes more severely, and then maybe people really will learn that crime doesn't pay.

Knifecrime. in the West Midlands.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034621/Revealed-The-truth-knife-crime--soared-35-cent-parts-Britain.html

An article published last year detailing figures surrounding knife-crime in certain areas of England.

The problem seems though, as this article clearly states, is that although knife crime is deteriorating is more suburban areas there is a clear increase in the amount of stabbings in urban areas which include Birmingham.

The mother of a stab victim killed whilst sunbathing in Birmingham City centre at the age of just 16, makes some very valid points on the BBC politics show.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034621/Revealed-The-truth-knife-crime--soared-35-cent-parts-Britain.html)

Mainly, the problem is that the laws and punishment surrounding knife-crime are far too soft.

As she rightfully states, carrying knives is looked upon as less of an offense in comparison to carrying a handgun, which is now illegal. So carrying a knife is more preferable to protagonists as their sentence will be more lenient.

Also, knives can be purchased from the age of 16, making them much more accessible than guns, again making them an easier option for young people.

The Criminal Justice Act states that anyone caught carrying a knife without good or lawful reason can face up to two years imprisonment.

So then why is knife-crime increasing?

Because this law is often waived or the sentence will be lowered, depending on the circumstances of the carrier.

The law needs to be changed.

Anyone caught carrying a knife should face 2 years imprisonment, whatever the circumstances and regardless if it has been used or not.

There should be no 6 month sentences or 1 year, every time a person is caught with a knife they should receive 2 years, end of.

Amnesty's and such like can not act as deterrent, only the police can do that, by arresting people in possession of a knife on the spot and by ensuring suppliers of such weapons are closely monitored to prevent underage selling. Maybe even raising the age to 21.

It is really sad that we live in a society where young people feel the need to carry knives for protection. More policing, tighter laws and harsher parenting could solve this problem, but only if the home office stop pretending to do something about it and actually put plans into action.

Comment on Dave Fox's views on shoplifting.

http://davefoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/

Before i comment, i would like to suggest that everyone reads this post should follow this link:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article2923540.ece

This is an article written by a woman who regularly shoplifts, mainly petty items, and also includes views of others.

Shockingly though, all of the comments written in this article are provided by shoplifters who have a comfortable income and do not have to steal to survive.

The addiction it seems, derives from the knowledge that they are stealing from big retailers who, they feel, are ripping them off.

Although i do not steal myself, i can relate to these people as it is ridiculous how much money some major retailers do make from it's shoppers.

For example, many people choose to shop in supermarkets, as they are usually begin being cheaper and more convenient. This means that many smaller businesses such as butchers, can not afford to keep up with the lower prices offered by the supermarkets and inevitably end up out of business.

It has now got to the point where, in most areas, the only food halls that exist are supermarkets so consumers are trapped.

Once this occurs, there is less competition for the supermarkets and the prices begin to creep up because they know that people have no where else to shop.

Similarly, clothes shops use cheap labour, yet still sell clothes at a ridiculous price, knowing that people will pay for the brand names.

People who feel fed up of this, such as the author of the above article feel that shoplifting from such establishments as these is then justified.

Before i read this, i did agree with Dave Fox's comments, and i also thought that shoplifting was a necessity to survive or a cry for help, but now i feel that maybe it is an individuals rebellious act due to knowing that they are being cheated.

As the author states; it is 'tit for tat against the large retailers who rip me off'.

Abortion.

A very difficult subject but one that should be discussed.

According to the BBC in 2006 the rate of abortion for England and Wales rose to an astounding 193,000 per year.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6765023.stm)
Shockingly though, only 1% of this was because the child in question would be seriously disabled.

I've got to admit, i am generally in favour of abortion because i do think a woman has a right to make an informed decision and in some cases an unplanned pregnancy could have devastating effects on the mothers life.
However, it is completely unacceptable for women to use abortion as a method of contraception.

Sex education is presented in most schools and many clinics are available where young men and woman can get free contraception and advice about sexual health. With such resources available it seems completely ridiculous for a woman to play the sex lottery knowing that she doesn't want a baby.

I can fully appreciate that many women become pregnant due to 'accidents' such a split condom or ineffective pill, and they should have the right to an abortion if they so chose.
However, if a person enters intercourse knowing that they are taking a risk then the right to an abortion should be seriously questioned and possibly denied.

The most ridiculous thing is that the statistics on this website show that 32% of women having an abortion will have already had at least one termination. Now this i do not agree with.
Dealing with an abortion can have a serious psychological effect on a woman, so why put yourself through it again? I really can't understand it. Everybody makes mistakes, i know that, but making the same mistake twice is seriously naive.

Anybody who wants a second termination without a valid reason should be denied such a procedure, as they have willingly subjected themselves to that consequence twice.

Personally, i think that a termination should be a last resort, and by this i mean taking appropriate action to avoid it, and anyone who doesn't should face the consequences of being so stupid in the first place.

Comment on Faith Jones view on political correctness.

http://faithyj.blogspot.com/

I have to say that i totally agree with your opinion. I am so sick of these morons telling people what they can and cannot say to ensure that they don't 'offend' people.

The thing that angers me the most, is that when black singers have lyrics such as 'nigger' and that seems OK, yet if a white person says that, it's extremely racist.

Also the word 'Paki'. Clearly it is short for Pakistani, just as 'Brit' is short for British, now if someone called me a Brit i wouldn't be offended, yet Paki is highly offensive, can someone please explain this to me, because i must have missed something!!!?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1988952.stm

Check this web link for a real laugh, politician John Denham was criticised by the police for using the phrase 'nitty gritty' because of race regulation rules. Now i really am confused? How on earth is that racist?

However, on the same page you can also get this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/462229.stm

This time a judge warns how political correctness can destroy relations between communities rather than help them. Too right as well, it's just a shame that nobody else has the bottle to stand up and agree.

I am so fed-up pf hearing this political correctness crap. To further infuriate me, most people of other cultures aren't even offended by what was originally said anyway.

There are far to many fancy goody goodies, who are offended by absolutely everything, making other peoples lives a misery.

It's about time they began concentrating on more important issues rather than phrases that have been in the English dictionary for centuries.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Bad Cinema.

As a film student, i have seen many controversial films.

However, i was still shocked when i watched 'Kids' the other day the language and attitudes of these adolescents threw me into pure disbelief.

Then i began thinking about censorship.

Arthur Marwick described the late 50's and 60's as 'a retreat from the social controls imposed in the Victorian era'. (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0012.html) True.

So then why, in 1971 when a Clockwork Orange was released, did Kubrick himself decide to withdraw it? Even more so, why was it OK to re-release it 27 years later?

The answer is that censorship and classification has changed, allowing controversial films to be more accepted, lets face it, if you don't see it, you'll hear about it!

In 1952, the supreme court ruled that 'treated within the careful limits of good taste' banned topics such as drug addiction, childbirth and prostitution would now be allowed in cinema, and from there, censorship was open to change and more directors openly challenged these rules with 'controversial films.

The filmsite.org have generated a list of 'the most controversial films of all time' and it is worth noting that they were all released after or during the 60's. (http://www.filmsite.org/controversialfilms9.html)

The 60's was a decade of great change, the contraceptive pill became legal, hippies were everywhere and many books were banned due to their explicit sexual content and cinema reflected this, by being more controversial than ever.

Amazingly many of these films have recently been reproduced again, such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and are more graphic than the original, proof of the wavering censorship.

Bad Cinema, is an excellent piece of media. It reflects the problems in society and alienates it's audience, yet forces them to continue watching in pure disbelief. It can raise awareness of tragic or dangerous issues and teach moral lessons.

Bad cinema allows it's audience to enter a dangerous fantasy without having to suffer the consequences or allows viewers to test their imagination, either way, bad cinema is essential.

There will always be certain taboos in society and i personally believe that more directors should attempt to force a viewer to assess their own thoughts on these topics.

Most of which we view on screen has happened in reality, and shockingly, some are even based on true stories. Bad cinema should become more common because no matter how disgusted we are by it, many of the topics displayed are unavoidable in many societies.

The truth is, ignorance is bliss, and many directors know this and exploit it, because somethings just can't be ignored!!

Bandits and Outlaws, Jesse James.

I recently watched the film, The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford.

Although some articles describe him as a 'Robin Hood' type of villain his motive throughout this film appears to be loyalty and hatred.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/3669601/Film-reviews-The-Assassination-of-Jesse-James-by-the-Coward-Robert-Ford-Hitman-and-This-Christmas.html

The Times state that Brad Pitt plays Jesse James as a 'psychopath' who is accustomed to sudden bursts of 'depression and murderous hatred'.

At one point in the film the narrator states that some believed Jesse's actions came about through hatred of the 'Union' who robbed them of all their material possessions during the Civil War, but them later claims that this was not true as his victims had various political views, once again proving that he was mentally unstable.

This website: http://www.jessejamesoutlaw.com/jesse-james-history.html, states that the James boys refused to 'submit to such injustice' and 'remained faithful to the cause for which they fought'. Another sign that Jesse felt strongly about loyalty after the events of the Civil War.

A review by the Guardian describes this film as 'accurate without being enlightening', which i feel is a very good view.

Clearly Jesse James is a mentally unstable citizen who was deeply affected by the Civil War, his robberies were for personal gain and his attraction to living the life of an outlaw was governed by a deep hatred towards the Union.

This film clearly demonstrates that crime doesn't pay, as he is eventually killed by his biggest fan, with a gun that Jesse bought for him. Ever the loyal leader, Jesse encounters the highest form of betrayal by being killed by a member of his own gang.

To add, every original member of his gang is also killed or arrested as the narrative progresses, a further indication that crime will eventually lead to a bandits downfall.

It is unlikely that any well balanced citizen would commit such crimes, and many chose to lead the life an outlaw due to great mental issues or deep hatred.

Therefore; bandits and outlaws are rare, and in a time of civilisation many realise that issues can be resolved in other ways, not through violence or theft.

Comment on Samuel Skelding's views on smoking.

http://skel88.blogspot.com/

I am a smoker, i spend around £140 a month on cigarettes as a 20 a day smoker.

True, i do regret starting this habit, as yes, it is vile in some ways.

However, i very rarely drink, maybe once every few months.

As a non drinker i find it difficult to understand why anybody would want to get intoxicated on a regular basis, so in reply to your query surrounding smokers who regret it but don't stop, can i remind you that smoking is the hardest habit out of any to quit, even more addictive than heroin.We don't quit because it's difficult and takes more willpower than i actually have at this present moment in time.

In your entry, you referred to getting 'quite drunk' so why would you want to do that again?

A few years ago, i experimented with alcohol and got absolutely ratted, to the point where i was verging on being paraletic, guess what? I never did that again, as i felt like i was dying.

So your response to trying a cigarette was not so different from my experiment with alcohol, i hated it and never did it again.

I agree that smoking does have damaging side affects, cancer being a major concern obviously, but I've known many people that have died from cancer and never smoked a cigarette in their life.

Alcohol also has many damaging side affects, liver failure being the most worrying.

My point is, smoking and drinking are not a problem when used in moderation.

However, when a person overindulges on alcohol, their behaviour changes, and violence or fatal mistakes are made, smoking takes a lot longer to kill you.

To sum up, i do agree that yes smoking does have horrid side affects, but overall it is not nearly as dangerous, or expensive as an alcohol addiction. So lay off us smokers for a while!!

Check out this websitesa for latest info and facts around alcohol realted deaths, another drain on our lovely NHS!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7208676.stm

Comment on Fatima Asfer's views on lying.

http://fatimaafser.blogspot.com/

I agree with Fatima's stand on lying here. In the opening paragraph she states that 'white lies' are more understandable, true, but it becomes apparent that a compulsive 'white liar' would appear to lie to cover many insecurities. I have seen many people with such behaviour as this, lying about silly petty things, because they have to be better than everyone else, when clearly they are not. The sad thing is, as Fatima suggests, eventually they get caught out because they tell so many lies they do not know the truth themselves. Also, once one lie is told many more have to be created to make their first lie feasible and this is when the mess begins.

To be a good liar, it is imperative that you have a good memory, so you can keep track of what you've said, and sadly, the majority of people who lie cannot quite manage this, and end up being found out.

The other sad thing is, that most of the time, the original lie is something forgivable, but as the situation spirals out of control, and the lies mount up, when the truth does come out, that lie is not longer forgivable and to tell the truth in the first place would have made much more sense.

I also believe that Fatima is right when she says that compulsive liars end up lonely, due to being 'fake' as people no longer trust them, and begin to realise that they are actually quite pathetic.

It's just like the boy who cried wolf, and look what happened to him.

In conclusion, lying is a natural human ability, but as we grow older, we generally realise that the truth comes out sooner or later, and a betrayal of trust just adds fuel to the fire, so we seem to grow out of it unless it is absolutely necessary.

However, if we didn't lie, then their would be a lot of lawyers out of work!!

Tattoos.

Before i begin, i will tell you now, i hate tattoos.

I think they are a waste of money, look tacky and are completely unnatural.

To add to this, i have found a website which explains the dangers on tattoos.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4691790_tattoo-dangers-side-effects.html

Allergic reactions, keloid scars, aids, HIV, tetanus, hepatitis b and c.

So it's clearly a health risk as well, not to mention the unnecessary pain.

What's the point?

Because apparently it's 'cool'.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4691790_tattoo-dangers-side-effects.html

According to this website, over half of the people who get tattoos later regret them anyway, and tattoo removal is NOT cheap.

Most people who get tattoos are either rebelling or drunk.

As we get older, our tastes change, if you get a tattoo, you're stuck with it for life. Even a removal may not completely erase it, so you would need to be 100% sure that you will be happy with it forever. This, i believe is impossible.

I disagree with this subject completely because i just cannot understand the attraction to them.

But i suppose it's personal preference and what i don't like, someone else may love, but the question is, will they love it for life? Probably not. So why bother in the first place?

Money and Greed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7981103.stm

Shocking but true, failed business man kills wife and daughter in despair after clocking up a whopping £1.2 million debt.

Worryingly this man had actually told his GP weeks before that he felt 'suicidal' after facing bankruptcy.

Money..the root of all evil?

Money makes the world go round yes, but it is not the be all and end all.

Honestly, i can see the attraction to the riches, it's not hard to recognise why so many people want to be stupidly rich, but when does aspiration turn to greed?

Surely, a well balanced human being would recognise the need to be comfortable, successful and happy as their ultimate goal.

Our society however; seem to believe that money can do all of these things.

When we die, money is useless, so why is there such a great need for it in our mortal lives?

The quest for money can be dangerous, look what happens to gangsters. When we do get it, do we gain more respect? No. Look at the trauma of Fred Goodwin, the ex-chairman of RBS. He failed miserably and still got a lot of money, and the public despise him for it. So is money really a sign of success? No.

Why do our society value materialistic items over priceless goods? Such as children?

When we die, children are the only part of us that we leave behind, so surely raising them to the best of our ability should be the ultimate goal?

In life, it is true that money is necessary, but isn't it about time that people learnt it is not the answer to everything? Maybe then such tradgedies as this wouldn't occur.

DRUGS!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/mental_health/drugs_use.shtml

Above is a website which provides information and advice about drug abuse.

This is a better website as it doesn't just concentrate on illegal drugs, it's looks at alcohol and tobacco as drugs as well.

It explains how hard it is to spot a person with an addiction, how difficult it is to overcome the problem and explains the dangers of going 'cold turkey'.

The thing i liked most about this website is that it expressed how drugs can be demonstrated through films, such as 'Trainspotting', a very good example of the dangers of drug abuse.

They say that tobacco is the hardest habit to kick, and as a smoker, being addicted to this 'drug' i can understand the hardship of trying to come off drugs.

However, the government must also know this, due to the support available to drug users. The talk to Frank adverts are very common and advise on the effects of drug taking, especially that of cannabis, which seems to be the more popular drug of our generation.

However, it is unusual to find a cannabis user that doesn't already smoke tobacco.

Personally, i find this rather strange because they must already see how easy it is to become addicted to a 'drug' so why they want to add another substance into their tobacco is beyond me.

However, i feel drugs, like alcohol and tobacco are substances which people reach for during a rebellious stage, or a desperate time when they are not thinking clearly and the effects felt by the user then become irresistible.

As a smoker, i know how easy it is to become addicted to something, that's my error, however, it has taught me that i should avoid becoming addicted to anything else as an addiction is extremely hard to overcome, which is one of the reasons i would never try drugs, for fear of becoming addicted, maybe other people should become aware of the harshness of an addiction and then they would think the same?