 SmokingCaterpillar | SmokingCaterpillar April 1 2025 02:58:24 PMSo, there's a bit of a problem with magic mushrooms. They're a bit difficult to measure when it comes to dosing. Here I lay out my personal thoughts on how to do this safely and effectively. First, by researching reputable sources, I've come up with the dosing levels in terms of mg of psilocybin. These dosing levels are for an average human being. If there is such a thing. Here's a nice table for you: | Level | mg psilocybin | | Low | 5-10mg | | Intermediate | 20mg | | High | 30-40 | | Heroic | >50 | So, the question now is, what is the concentration of psilocybin in the magic mushrooms? Well we have no practical way to measure it. But by using a rule of thumb, we can probably get our dosing to a decent level of accuracy. Research tells us (and yes, I know there are many opinions on this topic) that there is anything between 0.8 and 1.8% of psilocybin in dried mushrooms. Let's use 1.2% as an estimate. We can now extend the table above to this: | Level | mg psilocybin | grams dried mushroom (approx) | | Low | 5-10mg | < 1 | | Intermediate | 20mg | >1 & < 3 | | High | 30-40 | >=3 & < 5 | | Heroic | >50 | >5 | Using that relationship, we can say that 1g of dried mushrooms get us around 12mg psilocybin. Meaning that a dose of 5g of dried mushrooms will give us about 60mg psilocybin. Seems reasonable to me. But because of the variation in potency, it's worth taking a look at the toxicity of the active ingredient, psilocybin. The LD50 of psilocybin is in the order of 280mg/kg of body weight. Taking me as an example at 75kg, this means that I would have to take 280 x 280mg, which is 21,000 mg. or 21 grams of pure psilocybin. This is equivalent to 1750g of dried mushrooms. I cannot imagine anyone eating that amount of dried mushrooms. Even if they were made into some sort of smoothie. There is, however an additional risk. And that is when psilocybin is taken with other drugs. Many of us use medical drugs for acute and chronic conditions, and they way in which psilocybin reacts to these drugs is important. Now, I can't list all the possible combinations, but here are a few to watch out for. This list is by no means complete - or even necessarily that accurate. But you get the idea, I hope. | Group | Examples | | Antidepressants | SSRIs: Fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), paroxetine (Paxil), citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro).
SNRIs: Venlafaxine (Effexor), duloxetine (Cymbalta), desvenlafaxine (Pristiq).
Tricyclic Antidepressants: Amitriptyline, nortriptyline, desipramine. | | Opiod Analgesics | Fentanyl, tramadol, meperidine, methadone. | | Other recreational drugs | Amphetamine, methylphenidate (Ritalin).
Other: MDMA (Ecstasy), LSD, buspirone. | | Other common non-recreational drugs (condition in square brackets) which do not interact significantly with psilocybin | Amlodipine [hypertension], Atorvastatin [high cholesterol], Tadalafil [erectile dysfunction] | Generally speaking, if you're taking any other drug, especially those that are connected to depression, check them out for the way in which they interact with psilocybin. I personally have only used drugs that do not apparently interact with psilocybin (the bottom row in the above table\) So. There you have it. But bear in mind, there are lots of variables here and precision is not going to be great. But using this as a guideline for doing is probably going to work out OK,## But what you should do if you don't get the dose right? Too much? You are not likely to suffer any long term effects. Ensure that you are in a safe pace (I recommend a bed) and the psilocybin will be processed by your body and you will recover. there's little or no comedown with psilocybin. Too little? It seems that there's little point in trying to correct an underdose with more psilocybin. It's unlikely that a second dose will get you there - the mechanism of psilocybin's effect tends to dampen that. If I need to get higher, THC seems to do the trick - it seems not to interfere with psilocybin and if you're using a vape you can sort of fine tune your trip. Well that's about it for this episode. If you have any comments to make, feel free. SmokingCaterpillar March 30 2025 02:58:18 PMSo, how on earth did I get into recreational drugs?
Well, it's a relatively short story spread out over quite a long time period. Soething like seventy years.
So, I was born in 1953, some 8 years after the end of World War 2. That makes me a Baby Boomer, I think. At the time, quite a lot of people smoked. I remember my father smoking (Rothmans). My mother only smoked socially and I never felt that she was actually very keen on it. As for me, I was introduced to smoking at around the age of 12 to 13 at my boarding school. I continued smoking till my late twenties. Smoking everything I could lay my hands on - cigars, pipes, cigarettes, rolling my own. I was quite heavily addicted, but eventually I had a sudden attack of common sense and quit.
As for recreational drug use, I really didn't do anything. I was in the Merchant Nave as a deck officer - the favoured recreational drugs were nicotine and alcohol, often in heroic amounts. The unique aroma of smouldering weed was something that I could recognise, but it never really occurred to me or my compatriots to partake, with one exception that I recall in West Africa when we midshipmen bought a quantity of cannabis and smoked some of it while sitting on the pop deck while in port. This wasn't terribly risky - a spliff is merely a roll your own with cannabis mixed in the tobacco. The only giveaway is the smell and if you're outside, well, that's quite temporary.
It didn't do anything memorable.
Fast forward to 2023. When I went to a music festival with two junior relatives. That's junior to me, by the way, they are very much consenting adults. One of them is an experienced but infrequent recreational drug user and his expertise was invaluable. We took a motorhome, beer, some MDMA and some cannabis in the shape of flower.
The experience was extraordinary.
I had never felt anything like this in my life. I decided that recreational drugs were just too good to miss out on. I'm retired, though I do work part time. But I have few responsibilities and there are plenty of opportunities for me. If I took the time and trouble to research what I was doing, I'd be minimising my personal risk.
I drew up a list of recreational drugs that I would countenance.
Opiates were out. Solvents also. And cocaine. ketamine, heroin. Alcohol, too, except for rare occasions and even then it's usually a glass of wine with a meal, that sort of thing. I'm not the sort of person who goes out for a drink. Anything I took must have low toxicity, too. This is my main criterion - with the way in which some recreational drugs are mixed with fillers of doubtful provenance, toxicity is the main reason why I steer clear of certain drugs. Another issue is one of addiction. I like cannabis but find that waking and baking is not for me - I'm usually an evening consumer and I find cannabis about as addictive as coffee to me. Which is not really at all. Other risk factors that come to mind are things like mental issues. In my case, this is relatively easy to check. I have never experienced or had any treatment for any mental health issue - for example it is likely that high doses of THC can cause issues. But they seem to be mainly in people who have pre-existing issues already. My personal risk is probably low and I have not had any issues so far.
My list eventually came down to: - Cannabis in most forms
- LSD
- Magic mushroom
- MDMA
Cannabis
I'm a bit of a gadgeteer. By that I mean I like shiny new things, especially when it comes to recreational drugs. So I have a wax pen, a 510 cart battery, an Arizer XQ2, a vapour cup, and a few other vaporisers driven by a mod box. Now this makes me sound like a complete dissolute, but that's not the case. I probably get through about 1 - 2 grams of flower or its equivalent per week. Hardly a high consumption. My favourite method is probably vaping flower. I seem to get the best high from that - 510 carts, which are essentially a subset of the active components of the cannabis plant are effective, but the high just doesn't seem to be quite the quality that I get from pure flower. Wax is OK, too, but sometime I find the rush a little intense. Cannabis is probably the safest recreational drug you can take, especially when you vape or eat it. Yes, there are risks involved, but when you look at them, they're manageable in my opinion. As a side note, I've had little success with cannabis edibles. It's possible that I don't have the genes required for processing THC via my digestive system. Though I haven't given up yet.
LSD
This was interesting. And that's an understatement. My first LSD trip was a bit of a disaster. I bought some through Little Biggy. Ignoring completely the concepts of start low, take it slow, set and setting, I took 125mcg around 7pm one evening. Nothing happened for a while, so I had a couple of rips from a 510 cartridge and when that didn't improve matters, I dozed off.
Only to wake around 9pm in the middle of an LSD trip. My first ever full on psychedelic experience. Aged 70 or so.
And it was absolutely brilliant. My brain was doing all sorts of things I had never experienced. The tidal wave of emotion, glory and hallucinations enveloped me. I knew at that moment that this was the start of a new and very interesting experience.
It became clear to me that what I craved was the psychedelic experience rather that the soporific effects of the drugs. Since then I've had a couple more trips and am getting the hang of it, I think. LSD is a very suitable recreational drug for me in that it gives an intense psychedelic experience without any significant risk of harm from its chemical toxicity, which is extremely low. One of my best trips was on a summer day, out in the open. It was indescribably beautiful. I won't attempt to describe it. After all, I've just said it was indescribable. You just have to experience it. Much better than listening to me rabbiting on about it.
Psilocybin
For me , this is the kissing cousin of LSD. Trips are as enjoyable. And different. Though I can't really put my finger on those difference, partly because I've found difference in trips with the same drug. Again, as with LSD, toxicity isn't really an issue here. Which is just as well, because experience has told me that the amount of psilocybin per gram of mushroom can vary widely. If you take too much on board, the only realistic option is to ride it out. The aftereffects of psilocybin for me last for days or even weeks after a trip. - a general calming down and a feeling of resetting. Similar to LSD. I've recently done a trip on a heroic dose. 6 grams of Melmac Monster shrooms. McKenna reckons that anything over 5 grams qualifies as a heroic dose. I was an intense experience - most enjoyable. But I don't want to do another for a while. It takes (for me, anyway) a few days to process the experience. I'd advise you to work you way up to it - don't do it the way I did the LSD trip. MDMA
I have only taken this once - at that festival I mentioned earlier. But I'll be back for more. A maelstrom of happy emotions is what I recall - even to the point of looking in a marble and seeing an entire universe in it. Yeah, I don't understand it. But I liked it. So, what's the takeaway from this? Here's what I've worked out so far. It's better to go into recreational drugs deliberately than falling into it. You might argue that it's better never to get into recreational drugs. But that's a different discussion. Deliberation implies research into possible risks and benefits. So, while taking recreational drugs might be considered irresponsible, if you have few responsibilities, irresponsibility becomes irrelevant. I've not had a bad trip yet. But I do generally take care to ensure that 'Set and setting' is right. And I take recreational drugs for enjoyment, not to solve personal issues. Which I know they don't. In fact, I find that if I have life problems to solve, I actively do no want to take recreational drugs. I'm really glad that I didn't start recreational drugs when I was younger. I think that may well have turned out badly. Actually, I'm sure that would have been the case. But I'm also glad that there's a wealth of information on the subject out there which enables me to take a decision that some might find irrational. I disagree. At seventy, taking recreational drugs (with caveats) can be a responsible decision leading to fascinating and enjoyable experiences. And we are all the sum of our personal experiences to a great degree. You might well consider it.
SmokingCaterpillar March 27 2025 01:18:22 PMWell you have idle moments now and then. So I asked Gemini's Deep Reasearch model tpo take a look at what Brexit has cost is financially. Depressing. This is what it came out with. The Economic Cost of Brexit to the United Kingdom
1. Executive Summary
This report provides an analysis of the economic costs incurred by the United Kingdom since its departure from the European Union. Assessments from reputable economic institutions such as the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) consistently point towards a significant negative impact across various economic indicators. Quantifiable impacts include an estimated long-run reduction in the UK's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of around 4-5 percent. The UK's trade relationship with the EU has been notably affected, with long-term reductions in both imports and exports projected to be approximately 15 percent. Specific sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and financial services have experienced distinct challenges and adjustments. Brexit has also contributed to increased inflation and a higher cost of living for UK households. Foreign direct investment has seen a decline, and the labor market has faced new pressures, including labor shortages in specific sectors. Different economic models used to estimate these costs show variations in their findings, but a general consensus emerges regarding a substantial adverse economic effect.
2. Introduction
In June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, culminating in its formal departure in January 2020, followed by the end of the transition period in December 2020. This decision marked a significant shift in the UK's economic and political landscape. Understanding the economic consequences of this departure is crucial for policymakers, businesses, and the public. This report aims to provide an objective, data-driven analysis of the economic costs of Brexit to the UK, drawing upon research and analyses from leading economic institutions and official government publications. The objectives align with the user's query, encompassing the overall macroeconomic impact, trade dynamics with the EU, sectoral effects, inflation and cost of living, foreign direct investment, labor market implications, official assessments, and a comparison of different economic models. The report relies on a comprehensive review of reports and data from sources such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the Centre for Economic Performance, and HM Government. The structure of this report will proceed by examining each of these areas in detail, culminating in a conclusion that synthesizes the overall economic impact of Brexit on the UK.
3. Overall Macroeconomic Impact
The departure from the European Union has had a discernible impact on the overall macroeconomic performance of the United Kingdom, particularly concerning GDP and productivity.
Impact on GDP
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the UK's fiscal watchdog, has consistently projected a significant long-run reduction in the UK's economic potential due to Brexit. Their latest economic forecast assumes that the post-Brexit trading relationship, as defined by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), will reduce the UK's long-run productivity by 4 percent relative to a scenario where the UK remained in the EU . This reduction is primarily attributed to the increase in non-tariff barriers on trade between the UK and the EU, which impedes the efficient allocation of resources and the exploitation of comparative advantages. The OBR estimates that approximately two-fifths of this 4 percent impact had already materialized by the time the TCA came into effect in January 2021, driven by uncertainty that weighed on investment and capital deepening . Furthermore, the OBR has cautioned that the long-term economic repercussions of Brexit are expected to be more severe than those of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a predicted GDP reduction of up to 4 percent compared to the pandemic's estimated 2 percent impact . This stark comparison underscores the magnitude of the anticipated long-term economic cost associated with leaving the EU. The Treasury has also referenced OBR forecasts, indicating a 4 percent long-run shrinkage of the UK economy as a consequence of Brexit . This alignment between the fiscal watchdog and government officials highlights the significance of this projection.
Independent analyses from the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) corroborate these findings. John Springford of the CEP estimated a reduction in the UK's GDP of around 5 percent by the second quarter of 2022 . This estimate is also acknowledged by the OBR . A broader review of evidence suggests that the negative impact of Brexit on UK GDP to date is in the range of 2-3 percent, with another estimate from Springford suggesting a 5 percent negative impact since the 2016 vote . The OBR itself assumes a 4 percent reduction in GDP per capita over a 15-year period starting from 2016. Researchers at the London School of Economics (LSE) suggest that the long-run cost of Brexit could even exceed 4 percent . Cambridge Econometrics offers a longer-term perspective, projecting that annual Gross Value Added (GVA) growth in the UK will be 0.4 percentage points slower between 2023 and 2035 due to Brexit, resulting in a 10.1 percent lower GVA by 2035 . The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has also publicly acknowledged the negative economic consequences of Brexit, particularly the weakening of trade, which has put downward pressure on the UK's potential supply and, consequently, GDP. He cited independent analyses, including those by the OBR, which estimate a 4 percent economic hit over a 15-year period as a result of Brexit .
The consistency of these estimates from various reputable institutions, including the OBR, CEP, Bank of England, and LSE, within a range of approximately 4-5 percent long-term GDP reduction, points towards a significant consensus regarding the substantial negative macroeconomic impact of Brexit. This convergence of findings, derived from different methodologies and data, strengthens the reliability of the assessment that leaving the EU has imposed a considerable cost on the UK's economic output. The OBR's comparison of Brexit's impact to the COVID-19 pandemic further emphasises the scale of the economic disruption caused by leaving the EU. This suggests that the long-term consequences for economic growth and overall prosperity in the UK are likely to be substantial and enduring.
Impact on Productivity
Productivity, a key driver of long-term economic growth, is also projected to be negatively affected by Brexit. The OBR specifically assumes that the post-Brexit trading relationship with the EU will reduce the UK's long-run productivity by 4 percent compared to remaining in the EU . This anticipated decline is primarily attributed to the increased non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade, which are expected to hinder the UK's ability to fully exploit its comparative advantages in various sectors. By creating obstacles to seamless trade, these barriers reduce the efficiency with which goods and services are produced. The Governor of the Bank of England has also highlighted that the UK has experienced weaker productivity growth since 2008, suggesting that the impact of Brexit on productivity is occurring within a broader context of existing economic challenges . Furthermore, Cambridge Econometrics projects that Brexit will lead to a widening productivity gap between London and the rest of the UK, with the primary productivity impacts expected to be felt outside of London . This indicates that the consequences of Brexit for productivity will likely not be uniform across different regions of the country, potentially exacerbating existing regional economic disparities. The OBR's explanation that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade will impede the exploitation of comparative advantage provides a clear mechanism through which Brexit is expected to reduce productivity. This suggests that the new trade arrangements established after leaving the EU are inherently less efficient than the previous single market membership in facilitating optimal resource allocation and specialization.
| Table 1: Estimates of Brexit's Impact on UK GDP | | Institution | Estimated GDP Impact | Timeframe | Methodology | | Office for Budget Responsibility | -4% (Productivity) | Long-run | Assumes impact of Trade and Cooperation Agreement | | Office for Budget Responsibility | Up to -4% | Long-run | Overall assessment | | Centre for Economic Performance | -5% | By Q2 2022 | Doppelgänger method | | Centre for Economic Performance | -2% to -3% | To date | Review of evidence | | Centre for Economic Performance | -5% | Since 2016 vote | Synthetic counterfactual methodology | | Office for Budget Responsibility | -4% per capita | 15 years from 2016 | Assumption | | London School of Economics | > -4% | Long-run | Forecast with trade barriers reducing productivity | | Cambridge Econometrics | -10.1% (GVA) | By 2035 | Projection based on slower annual growth | | Goldman Sachs | -5% | Hypothetical model | Comparison with no-Brexit scenario |
4. Trade Dynamics with the European Union
Brexit has significantly altered the trade relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, leading to a notable reduction in trade intensity.
The OBR estimates that in the long run, both UK exports to and imports from the EU will be approximately 15 percent lower than if the UK had remained a member of the EU . As of February 2025, the OBR indicated that this assumption of a 15 percent reduction in trade intensity appeared to be broadly consistent with available data . This substantial decrease signifies a considerable decoupling of the UK economy from its largest trading partner, which is bound to have far-reaching consequences for businesses and supply chains. The OBR has also observed that the UK's overall 'trade intensity,' defined as the proportion of trade relative to GDP, has fallen significantly more than that of other advanced economies, with the majority of analyses suggesting that Brexit is a primary contributing factor . This comparative perspective underscores the unique impact of Brexit on the UK's trade performance when compared to its peers. Goldman Sachs' hypothetical economic model supports these findings, suggesting that the UK economy is 5 percent worse off, partly due to a 15 percent decrease in total imports and exports to both the European Union and the rest of the world . This independent modelling further validates the OBR's estimate of a significant contraction in trade volumes. Cambridge Econometrics projects that by 2035, UK imports will be 15.8 percent lower, and exports will be 4.6 percent lower than they would have been if the UK had remained in the EU . This projection indicates a more pronounced long-term impact on imports compared to exports, potentially reflecting increased costs and complexities for businesses involved in bringing goods into the UK. Research from the Centre for Economic Performance indicates an immediate sharp drop in trade following the implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, particularly affecting smaller firms, which experienced a 6.4 percent decrease in exports and a 3.1 percent decrease in imports . This highlights the initial disruptive effects of the new trading arrangements and their disproportionate impact on smaller businesses, which often have fewer resources to navigate new regulatory and logistical hurdles. Furthermore, a 2019 analysis revealed that British firms significantly increased their offshoring activities to the European Union after the Brexit referendum, while European firms reduced their new investments in the UK . This shift in business strategies suggests a response to the altered economic landscape, with potential long-term implications for the UK's domestic production and its attractiveness as an investment destination for European companies. The consistent finding of a substantial reduction in UK-EU trade intensity across various sources strongly suggests that Brexit has indeed created significant barriers to trade, impacting both the inflow and outflow of goods and services and potentially leading to a less interconnected and efficient UK economy. The disproportionate impact on smaller firms and the observed increase in offshoring by UK companies point towards a potential restructuring of the UK economy. Smaller businesses are facing greater challenges in engaging in international trade, while larger firms may be relocating operations to maintain access to the EU market. This could ultimately lead to a less competitive domestic landscape and potential job losses within the UK.
5. Sectoral Analysis
The economic impact of Brexit has varied across different sectors of the UK economy, with manufacturing, agriculture, and financial services experiencing distinct effects.
Manufacturing
The manufacturing sector in the UK has faced significant challenges since the Brexit vote. Growth in manufacturing investment effectively halted following the 2016 referendum . Furthermore, Brexit has caused a sharp decline in trade, particularly affecting smaller manufacturing firms, which have seen a 6.4 percent reduction in exports and a 3.1 percent decrease in imports . Increased complexity and regulation within supply chains, a direct consequence of Brexit, have disproportionately burdened smaller firms in the UK . This rise in bureaucratic hurdles and compliance requirements can diminish the competitiveness of UK manufacturers, especially in international markets. The combination of stalled investment and reduced trade, particularly impacting smaller manufacturers, suggests a weakening of the UK's manufacturing base in the post-Brexit environment. This could potentially lead to decreased output, job losses within the sector, and a slowdown in innovation, which is crucial for long-term growth and competitiveness.
Agriculture
The agricultural sector is undergoing a significant transformation following Brexit, primarily due to the need to replace the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with new domestic agricultural policies . This transition involves a shift from EU subsidies to UK-specific support schemes that often focus on environmental stewardship rather than direct acreage payments . The reshaping of trade relationships with EU member states and the development of new environmental and regulatory frameworks are also key aspects of this change. Concerns have been raised regarding potential labor shortages in the agricultural sector due to the end of free movement, which historically provided a significant source of seasonal workers . Additionally, sheep and beef farmers may face particular disadvantages under the new trading conditions . While the EU remains the UK's largest trading partner for agricultural goods, Brexit has opened opportunities for trade agreements with other countries, leading to a diversification of the UK's agricultural import sources . The move away from direct subsidies towards rewarding farmers for "public goods," such as environmental benefits, represents a fundamental change in agricultural policy. This shift could lead to environmental improvements but also presents economic challenges for farmers who need to adapt to the new system. The potential disadvantage for specific sub-sectors like sheep and beef farming, along with the reliance on seasonal EU labor, highlights the vulnerabilities within the agricultural sector that require targeted policy interventions.
Financial Services
The financial services sector, a critical component of the UK economy, has also experienced the impact of Brexit. The referendum itself led to a sharp depreciation of the pound sterling and increased volatility in the London Stock Exchange . Some financial activities have been relocated from the UK to the EU as a direct consequence of Brexit, with estimates suggesting approximately £900 billion in bank balance sheet transfers and around 7,500 job relocations . While initial fears of a mass exodus of financial firms and massive job losses have not fully materialised, the UK's financial services sector now faces reduced market access to the EU under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, as the previous passporting rights have been lost . Access is now governed by equivalence decisions, which are unilaterally granted by the EU and can be withdrawn with short notice, creating ongoing uncertainty . Data indicates a decrease in financial services exports to the EU between 2018 and 2021, coupled with an increase in exports to non-EU countries during the same period . Despite these challenges, London remains a significant global financial center . The fact that the actual number of job relocations was lower than initially predicted suggests a degree of resilience within the UK's financial sector. However, the relatively flat employment growth in the sector since Brexit raises concerns about potential 'missing' jobs and future growth prospects . The reliance on the EU's equivalence decisions for market access creates a persistent vulnerability for UK financial service providers, emphasizing the need for the UK to strengthen its own regulatory framework and pursue new international partnerships to ensure the sector's long-term stability and competitiveness.
6. Inflation and the Cost of Living
Brexit has contributed to an increase in inflation and a higher cost of living for households in the United Kingdom.
One study estimated that the Brexit referendum result pushed up UK inflation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, resulting in an average annual cost of £404 for British households . This direct impact on inflation has eroded the purchasing power of consumers. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) estimated that Brexit raised overall consumer prices, leading to an additional cost of £250 per year for the average household on food alone . This highlights the particularly significant impact of Brexit on food prices, which constitute a substantial portion of household expenditure. Research from the CEP indicates that Brexit has contributed to higher food price inflation in the UK due to increased non-tariff barriers affecting food imports from the EU and the depreciation of the pound sterling . Non-tariff barriers, such as customs checks and regulatory divergence, increase the costs associated with importing goods, which are subsequently passed on to consumers through higher prices. A weaker pound makes imports more expensive, further contributing to inflationary pressures. The London School of Economics (LSE) estimates that Brexit is responsible for approximately one-third of food-related inflation, costing an additional $8.8 billion on groceries . The consistent findings across multiple studies indicate that Brexit has indeed had a significant impact on inflation, particularly concerning food prices. This has directly contributed to the ongoing cost of living challenges faced by households throughout the UK, placing a considerable financial strain on many. The identified drivers of Brexit-related inflation, namely non-tariff barriers and currency depreciation, suggest that these inflationary pressures may persist as long as the current trading relationship with the EU remains in place and the pound's value continues to be influenced by Brexit-related economic uncertainties.
7. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into and out of the UK have been affected by Brexit.
A 2018 analysis estimated that the uncertainty surrounding Brexit led to a reduction in business investment by approximately 6 percentage points. Furthermore, European firms reduced their new investments in the UK following the referendum . This decline in investment can impede long-term economic growth, hinder innovation, and slow down job creation. The announcement of the Brexit referendum result also increased volatility in the FTSE, reflecting concerns among investors about the potential economic consequences . Such market instability can make the UK a less attractive destination for investment. According to the Goldman Sachs model, overall investment in the UK is down by 5 percent compared to a scenario where the UK had not left the European Union. This negative impact on investment is further exacerbated by a decrease in EU migration, which affects labor availability . Research from the CEP highlights a complete halt in the growth of UK manufacturing investment following the 2016 Brexit vote and specifically examines the impact of the referendum on overall UK foreign direct investment . The consistent evidence of reduced business investment and FDI following the Brexit referendum and the implementation of the TCA suggests that the heightened uncertainty, the introduction of new trade barriers, and the diminished access to the EU market have collectively made the UK a less appealing location for investment compared to a counterfactual scenario where it remained within the EU. Investment is crucial for fostering long-term economic growth and enhancing productivity. A sustained decrease in FDI will likely have adverse consequences for the UK's future economic performance. The connection between reduced EU migration and lower investment, as indicated by the Goldman Sachs model, implies that Brexit's impact on the labor market can also indirectly influence investment decisions. Businesses may be less inclined to invest in the UK if they anticipate difficulties in recruiting the necessary workforce due to restrictions on immigration.
8. Labour Market Implications
Brexit has had notable effects on the UK labor market, including changes in employment rates and the emergence of labor shortages in specific sectors.
Uncertainty surrounding Brexit was estimated to have caused a 1.5 percentage point reduction in employment in 2018 . This immediate impact highlights the sensitivity of the labor market to economic uncertainty. The end of free movement following Brexit has led to negative net immigration from the EU . The primary consequence of this reduction in labor supply has been higher prices and reduced output in affected sectors, rather than significant increases in wages across the board. A survey indicated that 80 percent of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) reported increased costs since Brexit, particularly related to recruiting staff, suggesting the presence of labor shortages . The decrease in EU migration has put additional strain on the UK labor market . Research from the CEP indicates that labor shortages have become widespread across various sectors, with Brexit identified as a contributing factor alongside the COVID-19 pandemic . The cessation of free movement and the subsequent decline in EU immigration have resulted in labor shortages in several sectors of the UK economy. This has increased recruitment costs for businesses and has contributed to inflationary pressures through higher wages in some specific areas. However, the evidence suggests that the main impact has been on overall prices and the level of output in affected industries, rather than a broad-based increase in wages. Addressing these labor shortages requires consideration of various strategies, including upskilling the domestic workforce. As noted by the CEP, upskilling is essential for the UK to recover from the combined impacts of COVID-19 and Brexit . While this is a crucial long-term goal, it may not provide an immediate solution to current labor shortages and may need to be complemented by other measures in the short term.
9. Official Government Assessments
Official government bodies, particularly the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), have provided assessments of the economic consequences of Brexit.
The OBR has consistently produced analyses on the economic and fiscal implications of the UK's departure from the EU since the 2016 referendum . These publications include detailed economic forecasts and specific assessments of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The OBR's latest forecast assumes a long-run reduction in UK productivity of 4 percent and a long-run reduction in trade intensity of 15 percent . As the UK's official fiscal watchdog, the OBR offers the most authoritative government perspective on the macroeconomic impact of Brexit. Their consistent estimates of significant negative effects underscore the scale of the expected economic costs. In contrast, the Government's own estimate regarding the economic impact of the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) suggests a much smaller positive effect, with an anticipated increase in the UK's GDP of just 0.1 percent over a 15-year period . This stark difference highlights the limited potential of individual trade deals with non-EU countries to offset the substantial negative economic consequences associated with leaving the EU and losing access to the single market. The OBR also references HM Government's [EU exit: Long-term analysis] from November 2018 . Reviewing the findings and underlying assumptions of this specific government publication would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the official assessments of Brexit's long-term economic impact.
10. Comparison of Economic Models and Methodologies
Various economic models and methodologies have been employed to estimate the cost of Brexit to the UK, each with its own assumptions and findings.
Several studies have utilized different approaches to quantify the economic impact of Brexit, including estimations of costs as a percentage of GDP and the effects on inflation and investment . It is generally acknowledged that long-term economic forecasts tend to be more reliable than short-term predictions. The OBR's methodology involves calibrating its estimates of trade reduction to align with the average findings from a range of external studies, enhancing the robustness of their conclusions . The synthetic control method has been applied to subnational economic activity data to estimate the overall economic impact of the Brexit vote and its distribution across different regions of the UK . This econometric tool creates a counterfactual scenario to isolate the effect of Brexit. John Springford of the CEP has employed the "doppelgänger" method, which uses an algorithm to identify countries with pre-Brexit economic performance similar to the UK's. By comparing the UK's post-Brexit performance to this constructed counterfactual, the method estimates a significant negative impact on UK GDP, investment, and trade . This approach has been subject to debate and rebuttals within the economic community. Goldman Sachs has also developed a hypothetical model that compares the UK's economy after leaving the EU with a scenario where it remained a member, estimating a 5 percent worse economic outcome attributable to Brexit . Estimates of the negative impact of Brexit on UK GDP vary, ranging from 2-3 percent to around 5 percent . These variations often reflect different assumptions, particularly regarding the impact on productivity. Jonathan Portes suggests a plausible range for the cost of Brexit to be between 1 and 5 percent of GDP . It is important to recognise the limitations of purely quantitative models and to supplement their findings with qualitative considerations of other factors that may have influenced the UK's economic trajectory since 2016 .
| Table 2: Comparison of Economic Models Estimating the Cost of Brexit | | | | | | Model/Institution | Methodology | Estimated GDP Impact | Key Underlying Assumptions | Timeframe | | OBR | Assumes impact of TCA, calibrates to external studies | -4% (Productivity) | Increased non-tariff barriers reduce comparative advantage | Long-run | | CEP (Doppelgänger - Springford) | Compares UK to algorithm-selected similar countries | -5% | Economic performance of comparator countries reflects no Brexit | Post-Brexit | | Goldman Sachs | Hypothetical model comparing exit vs. no exit | -5% | Impact on trade and investment | | | Synthetic Control Method | Compares UK regions to constructed counterfactuals | -8.11% to -10.68% (GVA for regions) | Regional economic activity data | As of 2022 |
11. Conclusion
The analysis of available evidence from reputable economic institutions and government publications consistently indicates that Brexit has imposed a significant economic cost on the United Kingdom. Estimates suggest a long-run reduction in GDP of around 4-5 percent, reflecting declines in both productivity and trade intensity with the European Union. The UK's trade with the EU is projected to be substantially lower in the long term, impacting businesses and supply chains across various sectors.
Manufacturing has experienced stalled investment and reduced trade, agriculture is undergoing a major policy shift with potential challenges for specific sub-sectors, and financial services, while remaining robust, faces reduced access to the EU market and some relocation of activities. Brexit has also contributed to higher inflation and a consequent increase in the cost of living for UK households.
Foreign direct investment has seen a downturn, and the labor market has faced new pressures, including notable labor shortages. While different economic models offer a range of estimates depending on their methodologies and underlying assumptions, a consensus emerges that Brexit has had a substantial adverse economic effect on the UK.
The long-term implications of these costs suggest a less prosperous and competitive UK economy compared to a scenario where it remained within the European Union.
SmokingCaterpillar January 23 2025 11:30:11 AMImagine that you're the head of a vast corporation today. Say someone like Elon Musk, though you could apply this thought to many others in a similar position like Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos.
What is the possibility that during a convivial dinner (or a Zoom session) two or more very rich people have joined forces informally in order to extend their empires? These are the modern equivalent of robber barons, I would suggest.
They have their fiefdoms (the gig economy provides a rich source of serf labour) and enjoy generous concessions from the sates in which they operate. Presumably in part because of the impression that 'trickle down' is a real phenomenon.
With so much power, surely these rich people have access to AI systems that are completely under their control? And they can tune the models towards any goals they want to without any regard to the consequences or ethical issues. Add to that mix a good solid messiah complex, and we have the recipe for totalitarianism.
In other words, these hypothetical people not only have the resources to influence world affairs but probably believe that they have a moral duty to shape the world according to their own beliefs.
SmokingCaterpillar December 15 2024 12:49:47 PMThere's a lot of often heated debate about the pros and cons of 20 mph speed limits in Wales and also selected parts of England - with the added context that I live on a road that is subject to a 20 mph limit. Also I have an A full motorcycle licence, own an electric motorcycle, a small car and a 3. 5 tonne motorhome.
I suppose the first question is 'what does a 20 mph speed limit result in?'
From my perspective. There are 2 main consequences of the 20 mph policy. There are others, but these two are the main ones I would like to focus on here. - Reduction in the number and severity of road traffic accidents.
- Increased journey times.
Considering the first point, since its introduction in Wales. It's important to note that relevant data is only available for a relatively short period. It seems to be that the first 6 months of the scheme's operation coincided with a 29% reduction in casualties (considered to be deaths or serious injury. The data seems to be reliable, from the Welsh Government, the BBC, the Guardian and Insurance companies. Interestingly an insurance company, ESure, in a press release, reduced insurance premiums for drivers in Wales. Not all insurance companies have followed suit, though.
Now, I would be the first person to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But in this case, there seems to enough circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion that there is a causal link and thus it seems to be a reasonable thing to conclude that the reduction in speed limit has had a positive effect on road accident stations. The level of that positive effect is much more difficult to quantify, though.
It's worth noting that adherence to the 20 mph limit is patchy. Some estimates state that overall traffic rates in 30 mph have dropped some 3-4 mph. This says to me that there is still some room for improvement- the main offenders are possibly people who don't observe the 30 mph limit, never mind a 20 mph limit. Better adherence may well improve the safety benefits of the policy. Moving on to the second point. Does it actually affect traffic flow rates? If it does, then how significant is it?
The first thing to realise is that 20 mph limits are only within built up areas. If I am to drive from Birmingham to, say, Norwich, then most of my drivingis going to be subject to the national speed limit, and I would not expect there to be significant increases in journey time for this type of journey.
Instead, let's pick a good sized urban environment - say Birmingham. The average urban speed actually achieved is generally thought to be and 18 mph, with London at 9mph and Bristol around 13mph.
It's difficult to come up with an way in which we can calculate the changes in average speeds because of the sheer number of variables that can affect the final result. Intuitively, one would expect a reduction, but it is probably less than one would expect. In the same way that increasing speed limits doesn't necessarily translate directly into comparable traffic flow improvements.
So now, what offer does it have on driving times? I would argue that it is relatively small, though I concede that is very likely exists. And whether it matters is quite subjective, though there's a strong objective element as well. For example, haulage firms, where margins are slim, would objective face longer journey times - a major factor in costing models.
And so we come to the final choice. And here's a point that I think some people miss. We already, as a society accept many risks without understanding the ideas behind that risk. I'm guilty of making flippant remark to some vaccine deniers/hesitants, that if they were truly concerned about their or their loved ones' safety, they'd be making a significantly large reduction in the risk to the overall risk by not using cars. The risk of death or injury through driving is almost certainly higher that any routine NHS vaccine such as COVID or flu. Just for the record, I have had flu, pneumonia, shingles, COVID and RSV immunisations.
Anyway, back to 20 mph. This is a personal opinion, of course, but I find I'm willing to trade relatively small increases in journey time with a significant increase in injured and fatalities. At the same time, I accept that clearly we need to make progress on the roads (a point that was made to me when I was learning for my class A motorcycle licence). An interesting historical example - the first cars in the UK were subject to a 5 mph speed limit and had to have a man (this was some time ago) with a red flag walking in front of the vehicle.
SmokingCaterpillar December 10 2024 02:08:07 PMIf you want to avail yourself of 'medication' and here I'm using the euphemism for recreational drugs. these are now, in the UK, easily obtainable. And they can be delivered by Royal Mail. Hypothetically. In principle. Allegedly. There are a few caveats. Firstly, you can only pay using crypto, mainly BitCoin. For myself, this is no great hurdle, as I'm reasonably OK with crypto. I don't buy crypto as an investment - it's way too risky an investment for me - so I buy small quantities and store them in a digital wallet. Even if I lose the wallet completely, there won't be a large amount of money there and I will not have to consider suing my local authority to get it back when the hard drive containing the wallet is on the tip. You can't buy hard drugs - mostly the offers are flower, concentrates, magic mushrooms and concentrates. Plus LSD and I thought I saw DMT there a while back. It seems that police action against recreational drugs, at least the level 2 recreational drugs, are not really considered to be a high priority by many police forces. And that is as it should be, IMHO. In terms of risk to public safety, surely a recreational drug user poses little threat to the community at large. And most recreational users know this. Canadian cannabis legalisation initially saw a sales boom driven by high demand, as could reasonable be expected. But this was hampered by supply shortages and persistent competition from the illegal market. Provincial regulations and limited product variety also affected growth - there wasn't a cohesive national policy, as far as I know. While a legal market exists and is growing, it hasn't fully replaced the black market, resulting in a more moderate and fluctuating sales trajectory than initially predicted. Indeed, it seems that the initial bullishness, which poured investment into legal recreational cannabis may have been overestimated. To me, the main reason is this. In most western advanced nations, cannabis is illegal in law but not so much practice. Many countries now operate a policy of lenience and/or decriminalisation. Something may well be against the law per se, but if the relevant authorities do not pursue the enforcement, then most people will not see any deterrent. In the meantime, the illegal trade has been becoming more sophisticated, with many of the features of the legitimate trade. As far as these consumers are concerned, the legal trade offers few advantages over the illegal trade. The main advantage, legality, probly just doesn't matter that much to most users. So, when a country that has not pursued the enforcement then changes its legislation, I would not expect to see a huge increase in consumption overall. And when consumption does increase after legalisation, it's probably mainly due to people who always wanted to indulge but were wary of possible legal consequences and are now curious. This group is probably a) older and b) quite small. And quite a few will try recreational drugs but then not continue. The illegal market has reached a high level of sophistication. When people talk about the illegal trade, some people think that this the old picture of a dealer, selling products of questionable quality on street corners. Things have moved on from there - the street corner has blossomed into a full market which should warm the hearts of even the most ardent free marketeers. Here's what you can get in today's market: Safety and convenience. You don't have to go out. Or meet anyone. In December, in the UK, this is a definite plus. Quality Many of the products sold are made to legally defined standards - these are products that originate in countries where cannabis consumption is legal. Feedback on sales is an integral part of quality assurance and many illegal channels now offer this. In addition official testing documention is sometimes shown on the product pages. Of course, there's room for forgery here, but many of the custom,ers are experienced users over many years and decades. Flawed products are usually quite quickly identified. Pricing Often below that of legal sources. A reasonable price for a gram of flower is around £10, with significant discounts for greater quantities. You get colour photos of the product, with peer reviews from other purchasers. Many vendors will post a delivery the same day or next by recorded delivery. A comprehensive escrow system with dispute resolution is built into the process. Vendors offer all sorts of inducement - extra items for free, free stickers, dab tools or even chocolate bars are things that I've received. Confidentiality Use of BitCoin and no retention of personal information on market places. Of course, BitCoin isn't totally secure, but you do at least ensure that any purchases you make will take significant (and expensive) work to trace back. It's difficult to justify to law enforcement management that it's a useful piece of criminal work tracing a financial transaction involving 7g of cannabis flower (about £40-50 at current market rates) when the possession and consumption of that amount and type would probably not even result in a criminal prosecution anyway. So, if you have a requirement why not check out https://littlebiggy.net/link/JWzt5E In the interests of transparency, If you purchase using that link, I may get a small commission. This does not increase the price to you SmokingCaterpillar November 27 2024 06:00:00 PMIn my life, so far, I've had two LSD trips. I've talked about a sort of risk assessment that I do in order to decide whether a recreational drug is appropriate for me to take.
Here's my basic thoughts on LSD. By the way, I'm not saying that I assert that the contents of the table are true. They're my opinions and as such are probably wrong to some degree. But on the basis that it's best to do some risk assessment before doing anything risky, here it is. | Area | Measure | | Toxicity | Low | | Metabolic effects (heart rate, temperature etc) | Slight elevations, maybe arrhythmia | | Chemical addiction risk | None known | | Dependence rate | None known | | Entertainment potential | Very good | | Negative psychological effects | Some links to issues. But also frequent anecdotal evidence of benefits. |
So, I took 125 micrograms of LSD at around 8pm one evening. I went to bed, watched a bit of TV, has a couple of rips on a THC cartridge and waited for the fireworks. But I fell asleep, to wake some time later in the middle of an LSD trip. Never having experienced anything like that in my life. It was incredible. Intense open and closed eye visuals like nothing I had ever seen. But here's the thing. I knew I was in a trip and most of the time I was a spectator to my own trip, of that makes sense. And this leads me to believe that it's possibly the case that if you're going to take recreational drugs, wait till you're older. I helps to contextualise things. It's a bit like watching horror movies, Stay with me, I will make sense eventually. I think. When you're a child, watching scary movies can be really scary. Whereas as an adult, I can watch scary movies without being disturbed by them. (Usually, anyway). But why is this? It probably doesn't matter - it's the fact that it happens that is the salient point.
Some time into the trip (you'll understand if say that timescales are difficult to work with when tripping on LSD) I decided that I needed to pee. The problem that I had was that the bathroom was a trip across a landing then six or seven stairs to get to the door of the aforementioned. Well actually, even that wasn't the problem. I was inhabiting two worlds. On the one hand I was in the physical world with things like gravity, emulsion paint, furniture, doors, floors etc. But I was seeing pulsating walls, colours, writhing tentacles etc. Even in my brain, though, I knew a couple of things. Firstly, I didn't want to pee in my pants. Secondly, I formed the opinion that I couldn't trust that things I could see were actually there. So, I devised a strategy dredged up from my fire training as a merchant navy officer. I had a clear mental picture of the layout of where I was (the LSD didn't interfere with that). So I approached what I thought was a wall and tentatively reached out. A bit like a line from Chris McCausland. He is blind, and says that he's nervous about trying to pet animals, saying one end has teeth and the other end ejects faces regularly. In other words, he's cautious. Anyway, once I was on the wall, it was a simple task to navigate my way to the toilet. Urinating in the middle of an acid trip is not one of the things I ever thought I would be doing, but there we go. A bonus was that I didn't miss.
There was a short period during the trip when I became sure that I had been noticed tripping by the neighbours and they had called the police - it might have been an ambulance passing that triggered the slightly paranoid opinion. But once I processed the thought, which admittedly took a while as I recall dimly, I realised that this was not the case and that I should lie down in bed to let things settle around me. The feeling quickly passed.
Some people talk about psychedelic experiences as being spiritual. I think I understand. It's a roller coaster of the mind and takes (for me, anyway) more than a day to process the trip. Yes, it's spiritual, for me, but not in a religious sense - you can have a non-religious spiritual experience, I believe. Through the trip I was never far away from the fact that I was chemically hacking my brain and that what was experiencing was a direct consequence of that. And I won't be making the same mistake when taking my next dose of LSD. SmokingCaterpillar November 27 2024 06:00:00 AMI guess one problem with dying is that we're increasingly divorced from death and its processes.. Now the Victorians were much closer to the realities of death than we are. Funny, that, because we sometimes think of them as prudish and emotionally repressed.
In this picture below (from the BBC), the child on the left has died. But this is a family porttrait. This may seem ghoulish to our modern 21st century attitudes. But I think it's reasonable because in those times, many families had large numbers of children and many would die before their fifth birthday from diseases that are easily and effectively treated today.
I'm uneasy about one cohort of the population's attitude to assisted dying. That cohort says that assisted dying is unacceptable in any shape or form. While i respect yje holding of the opinion, I feel that I cannot agree with that position.
We know that palliative care is pretty good nowadays. When giving someone palliative care, there's an acceptance that there is no longer a reasonable prospect of curing someone of the condition that is killing them. We also assume (sometimes incorrectly) that palliative care is always effective in terms of pain relief.
But, here's the thing. I would assume that a person who believes that assisted dying is unacceptable will have considered the future possibility that they might have to look after a loved one who suffers from a painful life-threatening incurable condition.
It's reasonable that they might be unwilling to either assist their loved one to die or enlist the aid of a third party to assist. But their insistence that their attitude should extend to their idea that no form of assisted dying is acceptable at all seems to be morally weak. Because morality, surely, is about how you deal with other people.
Here's my thinking (for what it's worth) on the matter. Most of the time, we have a moral duty to be kind to people in need. This is a thread that runs through most moral codes, including religion. Surely alleviating suffering is mostly an act of kindness. If I have a loved one who is dying in a painful and distressing manner, how is it immoral to assist them in their final hours of their existence? Palliative care is available, of course, but its imperfections are often glossed over.
I want neither myself nor my loved ones to have to go through any of the experiences recounted in this publication. To me, there's a test by which I can solidify my attitude to assisted dying. I Imagine a loved one in the late stages of a disease such as bowel cancer. This can be extremely painful, undignified l and distressing, as we know. It is by no means uncommon for people with this condition to ask for assistance in ending their suffering. If you were in the position of being asked, why would you not want to help that person who so desperately needs it? If I helped them, I might feel bad. But not helping them would be much, much worse. Because I would always know that I failed them and my failure resulted in needless suffering.
Here's something that I found useful in helping to form my attitudes to assisted dying. Yes. It has several anecdotal pieces. While normally I would be dismissive of anecdotal evidence, here I felt differently. As I said at the beginning of this short essay,
Surely, when I come to the end of my life. It's all over. A few minutes, hours, days or weeks plus or minus really make no difference in the grand scheme of things. A tiny part of the universe is being rearranged. The atoms and molecules that make up the person known as me continue for eternity as far as we know. They will become part of someone or something else. Amusingly, by all accounts, I may well have a few atoms from Julius Caesar. Life is not sacred. It is a natural and normal progression of biological processes. There's nothing divine or mystical about it that I can see. Being alive is truly amazing especially as I seem to be conscious at a time when the universe itself is beginning to understand itself. 'Nuf said... SmokingCaterpillar November 26 2024 05:59:39 PMWhen I was about 60, I eas disgnosed with prostate cancer. You now there's a problem when you're called to a consultation and there's two people in the consulting room. I elected to have a radical prostatectomy (RP). I was the first person to have that operation in the newly installed da Vinci machine. It's described as robotic surgery, but that's not really accurate, I think. Describing something as robotic implies a certain amount of autonomy. The da Vinci system =, at least in 2013, when I had the operation, was effectively a remote control surgical system controlled directly by a surgeon at a console some distance away from me.
So, how did I get there?
Well, it started with a screening program that my local GP ran. And probably still does. A routine blood test showed I had elevated levels of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). Elevated levels of this protein in the blood suggest a problem with the prostate gland, but it's not actually an indication of cancer as such, because other mon-cancer conditions can also cause elevated PSA levels.
However, it's worth investigating, so it was time for my relationship with my GP to get to a whole new level.
The next stage after the blood test is to actually check the prostate and its surrounding area. Digitally. That's digitally in the sense of a fingery digit rather than a numbery digit. Thankfully a rubber glove and a bit of lube made the experience not too unpleasant. In fact, I thought I was quite fortunate in that I was getting for free what a part of the population have to pay for.
My GP thought that the prostate was 'lumpy', indicating the possibility of tumours, so the next things on the diagnostic list was a biopsy. This involved a minor piece of surgery where a sampler is inserted into your rectum up to the prostate, and little core samples are extracted. A peculiar sensation. There was a little pinch feeling when the sampler was fired. The peculiarity was that it was an unfamiliar type of pain in an unfamiliar area. The surgeon mentioned that I might get blood in my semen as a consequence of the biopsy. A bit of an exaggeration, as ejaculation seemed to produce a haemorrhage. It sorted itself over a couple of weeks, turning from an alarming bright red sludge to an unappetising brown sludge before eventually returning to its customary off-white hue.
So, the cells collected in the biopsy showed a medium level cancer with negative margins (it apparently had not spread outside the prostate).
Then it was time to make my choice about how I was going to deal with it. Remember that this falls under the heading of 'elective' surgery. The point being that it's the patient who decides the treatment from the available options.
Well, I quite quickly decided that I was going for a radical prostatectomy. As far as I was concerned, it offered the best chances of success. I didn't like the idea of hormone therapy, where a possible side effect was developing boobs. An intriguing thought... Radiotherapy has some nasty possible side effects. All treatments of those treatments have documented negative effects on ED. But hey, I was sixty and I hadn't done all the fucking I wanted to do yet. Actually that's still my attitude at a shade over seventy. The other point is the using the daVinci system meant that the surgeon could perform what is called a 'nerve sparing' prostatectomy. There's plenty of information out there on the web and so I'm not going to go into any great detail - suffice it to say that the prostate is covered with nerves fibres that are important when considering the mechanics of an erection. In the old days, the surgeon would remove the prostate with all the attached nerves. Nowadays with a nerve sparing operation made possible by the precise dissection that be done by robotic surgery, nerves can be separated from the prostate and retained in the body. Even that separation means significant damage to the nerves, but they have a certain amount of regenerative potential; in my case it was almost 100%.
Now the thing is, men don't talk about things down there, really. I'm not sure why. So I'm going to get down and dirty from here on.
After the operation, when I woke up, what was the first thing to do? Why lift up the sheets and take a look at the old John Thomas. He was just lying there, a prunified shadow of his normal self. Muttering "What the fuck just happened?" Of this, more later.
It's now time to talk about catheters. I'd never had one before. For the uninitiated, a tube with a small inflatable bulb on the business end is pushed up one's urethra. Once in the bladder, the bulb is inflated slightly (I think it was saline) so it doesn't come out again. The other end of the tube goes into a collection bag. So you have this for 2 weeks. Including when you go to the toilet for number 2s and when you shower. A sort of symbiotic experience. Actually there was one piece of silver lining in the cloud - I found that I could sit through movies, consume unlimited quantities of liquids and not have to go to the toilets. A poor win, but in that state I can assure you that every small advantage is to be treasured.
Then it's taken out. The feeling was fantastic, leading me to jokingly request that it be re-inserted so I could savour the relief of it being withdrawn all over again.
My first post-op wank was dismal. A mere shadow of what I had experienced in the past. My penis was a mere shadow of its former self.
OK, so now there was the question of penile rehabilitation. Which translated, means that you try to counteract the effects of the surgery. Because we all love a stiffy, don't we?
There are a couple of ways of counteracting erectile dysfunction.
I can tell you though. You need patience. A shed load of it.
You can try things like penile injections. Apparently these work very well. But I'm not sure whether I'd have the courage. To. Stick. A. Needle. In. My. Dick. I took a more cowardly option - vacuum pumps. A bit like being sucked off by a robot. Didn't do anything for me, so I gave it up quite quickly.
Lots of practice. By that I mean, keep having orgasms as best you can. Even if they're weak and you don't get much of an erection. It doesn't matter. The old saying here is 'Use it or lose it'. Never a truer word uttered in this context.
Tadalafil. Just to be clear, Tadalafil is the generic name for the drug. It's often sold as Cialis, but that is a brand name in the same way that the generic drug paracetamol is often sold as Tylenol. there is There's some reasonable evidence that Tadalafil can help to regenerate nerve tissue. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4485415/ I was prescribed Tadalafil at 10mg twice per week or 20mg/week. Since then, I have moved to 5mg per day to give a 35mg/week dose.
And here's the thing. One thing that daily low doses of Tadalafil does is restore one signal of good penile health. The morning erection. While taking Tadalafil, I was experiencing morning erections similar to ones I had as a man in my twenties. Forgive me for the detail, but they're definitely high on the quality scale. There are sone side effects. The main one is indigestion (go figure) but that can be controlled by keeping fit and active, In my case, this problem has decreased possibly as I've become accustomed to iy.
The turning point was when I was in bed with an acquaintance, for want of a better word . We fooled about a bit for a while then drifted off to sleep. At some ungodly hour, I woke up with an erection. We were spooning in bed, and events went in a natural path. And it was fantastic. And I'm not exaggerating. I will always be grateful that that acquaintance of mine had the generosity of mind and body to bring me back from the edge. I will never forget walking into work the next day thinking, "Yeah. I can really fuck"
And there was a bit of icing on the cake. The damage to my nerves seemed to have given the ability to hold back an orgasm - it turned out that I could perform for extended periods of time and choose when to orgasm. Much to the delight off more than one acquaintance.
Orgasms are different. They're neither better nor worse. Just different. And with most radical prostatectomies, the seminal ducts are also taken out. So there's not semen when you orgasm. Which is kinda weird but sometimes convenient. It's good because it's less messy. It's good because if you're getting fellatio, you can orgasm without any spluttering from the fellatrix. I've not had any complaints about the lack of jizz, gentleman's gel or baby batter, whatever you want to call it.
SmokingCaterpillar November 25 2024 06:00:00 PMYou may have heard of 510 cartridges in the context of cannabis. I've written a piece about the CCell Palm Pro vaporiser here: 22112024134602SBOJ6C.htm, which uses 510 cartridges. This purpose of this piece is to lay out their constructions, purpose and use for people who may be new to this subject.
What is a 510 cartridge?
This is actually quite easy to explain. When vaping generally, there are four main components to consider. These are:
A tank to hold a liquid to be vaporised. This liquid can vary widely in its viscosity.
A wick to vaporise the liquid
A mouthpiece to allow vapour to be collected by the consumer
An electrical power source. This is a type of battery
A 510 cartridge integrates the first three of these.
The top portion, coloured white, is the mouthpiece. Depending on the way in which the cartridge is designed, it may be removable once only or many times. The central portion is where the cannabis oil is stored. Towards the bottom, you can see a couple of holes that allow the oil to flow into the wick. At the bottom, there's a threaded connector, the 510 thread. Now, this oil is very thick. Roughly similar to the viscosity of Tate and Lyle's Golden syrup when it's cold. The good news is that like Golden Syrup, cannabis oil's viscosity is inversely proportional to temperature - the warmer it gets, the easier it flows. Some 510 vapes like the CCell have a pre-heat feature. This activates the heating coil for a short period, about 10 seconds. This warms the surrounding oil and helps it to flow into the ceramic wick area. If the ambient temperature is over 20C, a pre-heat cycle isn't really needed in my experience. If you warm the oil to 30-40C, it's generally easy to work with when filling cartridges. That sort of temperature is not high enough (pun not intended, but I'll go with it) to affect the active ingedients.
One issue I have seen is clogging of the unit. Generally speaking with the CCell vape, this is fixed by running a couple of pre-heat cycles. If that still doesn't fix it, it might be that the clogging is in the mouthpiece. Removing it if possible and cleaning it out with an isopropyl soaked pipe cleaner works here. In my experience, the mouthpiece can get blocked with condensed oil. After all we are vaporising the oil at the bottom of the unit. By the time that vapour gets to the mouthpiece, it will have cooled significantly and will be starting to condense.
Why is is called a 510 cartridge?
Opinions on this differ somewhat, but a common one is that It's called a 510 cartridge because the thread at the bottom, which allows the cartridges to be connected to a power supply, has 10 threads, each 0.5mm apart. Seems reasonable to me, but then, it doesn't really matter overmuch as long as the standard is adhered to on a consistent basis.
Re-using 510 cartridges
There seem to be two classes of cartridges. some of them can be filled once - once the mouthpiece is snapped on, it cannot be removed without some degree of damage. Some of them are designed to be removed - generally they can be screwed on and off multiple tomes. If buying empty carts, I've found that generally, they are of the second class. You can indeed re-use 510 cartridges, though it's not entirely without problems. The first and foremost problem is the vaporiser. This will gradually degrade as it vaporises oil - the pores in the ceramic element will clog up, reducing the efficiency of the vaporiser and also the flavour of the delivered vapour. I have used carts twice with no apparent problem.
510 Cartridge sizes
510 cartridges (or 'carts') come in various sizes. The main ones are 0.5ml and 1.0ml. Though 0.8ml and 2.0ml units are available too, Some compact vaporisers like the CCell unit will only accept up to 1.0ml carts - 2.0ml carts have a slightly larger diameter than their smaller versions and won't fit into the cartridge dock of the CCell Palm Pro. When using cartridges, there's a bit of a trade-off. The larger the cart, the cheaper the oil by the millilitre. For example, two 0.5ml carts will cost more than one 1.0ml cart. If the cart fails for any reason, the only way you'll recover the oil is to empty the cartridge contents into another cartridge. That's fiddly and potentially messy. By splitting the risk between two cartridges, you tend to mitigate the risks. |
|