Jajon wrote:

---

Cocaine just isnt that bad a drug if Im honest, no need for bed wetting.. Decriminalise it all, works elsewhere. But Evans should have been given a MDWC, served his punishment and obviously in fairly good form, but hey ho, hopefully he can battle through qualies

---

To be honest it is. Young people have a sense of immortality and people will sell you anything for profit regardless of your situation. It is becoming ubiquitous in its availability and regularly pushed on children as young as 12/13/14 at skate parks.... etc where ever there is a kid likely to have a couple of quid to buy some powder. 

I am sure I am not the only poster to have been affected by the long term implications of cocaine use (If I am then people just arent looking hard enough) but having lost a very close (and brilliant not that makes any difference) friend who eventually hung himself after 30 years of drug use (predominantly cocaine) and later mental illness, it is not a drug I would consider sharing around my family after a late lunch. 

I am all in favour of free choice and my evidence is only anecdotal but not anything I would want anyone else to go through. Please consider my bed his families and friends soaked, with tears. 

Dans punishment was appropriate he has done his time, obviously regrets the decisions he made and should now just be allowed to get on and play tennis. 

I used to be all for legalising drugs - let people do what they like to themselves as they can with alcohol or tobacco, tax drugs and use the money for rehab.   I probably did not think enough about the misery caused to their parents, selfishly confident that my children are sensible.

However, recently I have read articles that made me change me mind.  (i) Several by doctors specialising in mental health pointing out that today's cannabis is 16 stronger than that 20 years ago and so much of the mental health problems they are dealing with are caused by cannabis use.  (ii) An article noting that if drugs were legal there would be a massive advertising drive to target young people and get them addicted.  This article pointed out the millions poured into advertising tobacco, alcohol and gambling.  It is clearly effective or it would not keep being spent.  It predicted that the number of those addicted to drugs would rise massively.   Following on for (i) so would incidents of schizophrenia and deaths of innocent people caused by those under the influence of cannabis whether driving or not.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Your point is very movingly made Oakie, and it has a lot of truth.

But many people will have been similarly badly affected by loved ones' alcohol-fuelled early deaths. And wasted lives. And from cigarettes. (Although I think that alcohol is a lot more destructive, taken overall).

Personally, I feel that this is one of the arguments for legalising the drugs - the ability to monitor and help people more effectively, with addiction problems. Because not everyone is addicted, or will be, or ends up with the same problems. And we need to be able to access better those who do.

---

Believe me we can't effectively manage alcohol and nicotine addiction, it has a grip that ravages the health of the lower soci-economic classes who struggle to engage in treatment even when it is well resourced which it isn't. There is absolutely no political will to engage in public health it has covertly been disenfranchised from health services along with sexual health. 

Adolesenct mental health resources are non existent there is already an epidemic of young adults ravaged and ruined by cannabis use, peer pressure is a powerful thing and no one is immune. My views are so skewed for so many reasons. It is hard to take a liberal view when you see so much poor decion making and the suffering that results. 

scottie1 wrote:

---

Does anyone know what time today the Roehampton Qualifying draw is being made?

---

 The way it's going,it could be turn up at 10am tomorrow and see who you're playing

Or keep on redrawing it until we get an impossibly difficult draw for Dan.

I AM getting very cynical.

indiana wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

From Stuart Fraser:

"Wimbledon will give four of their eight men's singles wild cards to the "next direct acceptance". De Minaur gets in directly as a result and hands wild card back. Two still to be announced."

---

De Minaur is either a direct acceptance on his entry ranking or he is a WC ( even if that is because some WCs have gone to the top alternates )    

---

 If he is a direct acceptance he would get the 10 points for R1 loss, if he was a WC he would not.

Re freerider's point I am pretty sure these who are just into the MD due to some of the WCs being assigned to the top alts ( since they couldn't find anyone else ) will still be officially treated as WCs and get 0 points if they lose their R1 match. There are still only 104 true DAs and 8 WCs and I was just initially really querying Stu Fraser's terminology.

And with Berdych's withdrawal I think De Minaur would now be be one of the 104. So having found 2 ways to get a WC I think he's ended up as a true DA. But I was kind of losing the will to live as to who ended up in how.

But basically there remain 104 DAs and 8 WCs ( some of whom are in on ranking ).

And I claim this week's pernickety award