Cannabis worth €1m seized in Dublin

A man has been arrested following the seizure of up to €1 million worth of cannabis in Dublin.
As part of an ongoing operation, officers from the Garda National Drugs Unit stopped and searched a van in Rathcoole last night.
During the search, officers uncovered a quantity of herbal cannabis. A man in his 20s was arrested and is being held at Clondalkin Garda station.

• Man held over drugs seizure | 26/06/2011
• Control of online sales of head shop drugs a 'challenge' | 28/06/2011
• Ecstasy seized at Dublin airport | 24/06/2011
• Irish drug death rate among highest in Europe | 24/06/2011

Google’s Tips On How To Write A Good Meta Description

The quality of your snippet — the short text preview we display for each web result — can have a direct impact on the chances of your site being clicked (i.e. the amount of traffic Google sends your way). We use a number of strategies for selecting snippets, and you can control one of them by writing an informative meta description for each URL.

<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="informative description here">

Why does Google care about meta descriptions?
We want snippets to accurately represent the web result. We frequently prefer to display meta descriptions of pages (when available) because it gives users a clear idea of the URL's content. This directs them to good results faster and reduces the click-and-backtrack behavior that frustrates visitors and inflates web traffic metrics. Keep in mind that meta descriptions comprised of long strings of keywords don't achieve this goal and are less likely to be displayed in place of a regular, non-meta description, snippet. And it's worth noting that while accurate meta descriptions can improve clickthrough, they won't affect your ranking within search results.

Snippet showing quality meta description




Snippet showing lower-quality meta description



What are some good meta description strategies?
Differentiate the descriptions for different pages
Using identical or similar descriptions on every page of a site isn't very helpful when individual pages appear in the web results. In these cases we're less likely to display the boilerplate text. Create descriptions that accurately describe each specific page. Use site-level descriptions on the main home page or other aggregation pages, and consider using page-level descriptions everywhere else. You should obviously prioritize parts of your site if you don't have time to create a description for every single page; at the very least, create a description for the critical URLs like your homepage and popular pages.

Include clearly tagged facts in the description
The meta description doesn't just have to be in sentence format; it's also a great place to include structured data about the page. For example, news or blog postings can list the author, date of publication, or byline information. This can give potential visitors very relevant information that might not be displayed in the snippet otherwise. Similarly, product pages might have the key bits of information -- price, age, manufacturer -- scattered throughout a page, making it unlikely that a snippet will capture all of this information. Meta descriptions can bring all this data together. For example, consider the following meta description for the 7th Harry Potter Book, taken from a major product aggregator.

Not as desirable:

<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="[domain name redacted]
: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7): Books: J. K. Rowling,Mary GrandPré by J. K. Rowling,Mary GrandPré">

There are a number of reasons this meta description wouldn't work well as a snippet on our search results page:

• The title of the book is complete duplication of information already in the page title.
• Information within the description itself is duplicated (J. K. Rowling, Mary GrandPré are each listed twice).
• None of the information in the description is clearly identified; who is Mary GrandPré?
• The missing spacing and overuse of colons makes the description hard to read.

All of this means that the average person viewing a Google results page -- who might spend under a second scanning any given snippet -- is likely to skip this result. As an alternative, consider the meta description below.

Much nicer:

<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="Author: J. K. Rowling, Illustrator: Mary GrandPré, Category: Books, Price: $17.99, Length: 784 pages">

What's changed? No duplication, more information, and everything is clearly tagged and separated. No real additional work is required to generate something of this quality: the price and length are the only new data, and they are already displayed on the site.

Programmatically generate descriptions
For some sites, like news media sources, generating an accurate and unique description for each page is easy: since each article is hand-written, it takes minimal effort to also add a one-sentence description. For larger database-driven sites, like product aggregators, hand-written descriptions are more difficult. In the latter case, though, programmatic generation of the descriptions can be appropriate and is encouraged -- just make sure that your descriptions are not "spammy." Good descriptions are human-readable and diverse, as we talked about in the first point above. The page-specific data we mentioned in the second point is a good candidate for programmatic generation.

Use quality descriptions
Finally, make sure your descriptions are... descriptive. It's easy to become lax on the quality of the meta descriptions, since they're not directly visible in the UI for your site's visitors. But meta descriptions might be displayed in Google search results -- if the description is high enough quality. A little extra work on your meta descriptions can go a long way towards showing a relevant snippet in search results. That's likely to improve the quality and quantity of your user traffic.

The Google Webmaster Central Blog described what makes for a good meta description versus what makes for a bad meta description. Meta descriptions are a special tag that you place within the source code of your html page. They can be used by search engines for ranking purposes as well as for being displayed within the search result pages.
The tag looks like this when you view the source code:

<META NAME=”Description” CONTENT=”informative description here”>

The Google blog post describes key attributes of what Google considers making a good meta description, factors its says may increase the odds that your meta description tag will get used. They include:

• Unique meta descriptions on each page of your site
• Show facts about the content on the page that are not represented in the title
• Make the description easy to read
• Dynamic sites can dynamically generate descriptive meta descriptions easily
• Make sure your descriptions are quality and represent the content on the page

For more on meta descriptions and titles, check out our SEO archives on titles and descriptions.
Many people think meta tags are the magic solution to ranking well. Create the perfect combination with the perfect keyword density and presto! Well, that is far from being true - there is more to SEO than good meta tags and there are also many off-page factors. However, it does help to have highly optimized Meta tags.

What are Meta Tags?

Meta tags are parts of an HTML document that are used for you to describe the page content for search engines. Meta tags are placed within the head area of an HTML file and with the exception of the Title tag; your visitors do not see them as part of the viewable area of the page.
How to write meta tags correctly:

Why are Meta Tags important?

The primary reason they are considered important in search engine positioning is that you have some ability to direct how your pages are described, categorized and indexed by various search engines. Don't be misled; creating the perfect Meta tags does not mean you will zoom to the top of the pack; many search engines do not assign much value to the majority of Meta tags.

Which search engines support Meta Tags?

Crawler-based search engines have the ability to utilize the meta tags; however, not all of them do so. Most will support one tag or the other but rarely does a search engine support them all. Crawler based search engines include: Google™, Teoma, Alta Vista, Inktomi, AllTheWeb and others. Directory based search properties like Yahoo Directory and Open Directory do not spider your pages; they rely on the description you supply to them when you submit your page.

How to write a good title tag

The title tag is not really a meta tag; however it does appear in the head area of your page along with the various meta tags and it is the most valuable tool to describe your page to the search engines. It is an extraordinarily important factor in how search engines rank and list your web site.

What search engines use the Title tag?

Just about all major search engines use the title tag in some way and many use it to compose their listing. When creating the title for each page you want to include your primary search terms or keywords and create a concise description of the page in general. The title tag is also used as the text to describe your page when someone adds it to his or her favorites list and it displays in the title bar of their browser, so, it is important to make it clear and descriptive.

Guidelines to writing a good title:

Create a title that is between 4 and 12 words. Remember, this is a guideline and not a rule. Each search engine has different maximum values for the title area. In any case, try not to exceed 63 characters because sometimes your title will be truncated.
Always use your keyword(s) in the title and aim for a keyword density of 20-35%. Example: Your keyword is "widgets". Your title could be: "Buy widgets at ABC Widgets Company" and since we used widgets twice within 6 words the density is 33%. This may not always be possible if you are targeting more than one keyword.
The important thing is to make certain your title is highly descriptive of your page but try not to dilute the effectiveness of your keyword by adding too many other words.
Don't use just the Company Name. Think "keywords" when writing the title. Try to put your keywords as close to the beginning as possible.

The Meta Description Tag

The Meta description tag allows you to write a short description of the page, however, it is not fully supported by search engines.

What search engines use the Meta Description?

Of the major search engines: AltaVista, AllTheWeb and Teoma make most use of the tag. Google™ automatically creates its own description from content snipets. Others may support it partially. Directories (like Yahoo Directory) are not search engines and they rely on the description you supply when you submit.

Guidelines to writing a good Meta Description:

Limit the total description to approximately 200 to 250 characters. Although some search engines may support more when indexing the page, they may only display a smaller quantity of characters.
Use at least one of your keywords near the beginning of the description.
Using 12 to 24 words total (and not exceeding the character limit) seems to be a good range for most search engines.

Meta Tags (Continued)

The Meta Keyword Tag

The meta keyword tag allows you to list the keywords for the page; however, most search engines do not support this tag.

What search engines use the Meta Keywords Tag?

Of the major search engines: Inktomi and Teoma are the few that even take this tag into consideration.

Guidelines to writing a good Meta Keyword tag:

List the primary keywords that pertain to this page.
Put the most important words at the beginning of the tag.
If you don't use your keywords within the viewable text of the page, then just adding them to the meta keywords tag is very unlikely to help with rankings for those keywords. However, some use the meta keyword tag as a place to put alternatives or misspellings of their keywords even though they are not on the viewable text. It is not clear whether this helps or not, but it won’t hurt.
Don't use this tag to “stuff” or repeat keywords. This doesn't help and could hurt with some search engines.
The optimal number of keywords should be between 7 and 48 words.

The Meta Robots Tag

The meta robots tag allows you to control whether or not you want the page to be indexed by search engines. By default, search engine spiders (crawlers) will try to index every page and follow links from one page to the next. The best use of the meta robots tag is when you want to keep the search engine spiders OUT and not let them index a page.

Guidelines to writing a Meta Robots tag:

Make certain you double and triple check your code when using this tag. Improperly formatted tags or the wrong usage could keep search engines from indexing your pages or even your entire web site.
If you use robots.txt file to block search engine spiders, you do not need to use the meta robots tag.
If you want the search engines to index your site, you really don't need to use the tag.
Always place it in the head of the document.

Examples of proper formatting:

Translation:
Index this page and follow all the links to other pages.
DO NOT Index this page but follow all the links to other pages.
Index this page but DO NOT follow the links to other pages.
DO NOT Index this page AND DO NOT follow all the links to other pages.
Note: Never put more than one meta robot tag on the page or more than one directive in the content area of the tag. Use the tools provided by InstantPosition.com to create your robots meta tag with index and follow already properly placed.

Other Meta Tags

There are many other meta tags besides the ones we've discussed, however, none of them will improve your search engine ranking. Some are for internal search methods and some (such as the revisit tag) have no effect with search engines. In fact, meta tags like the "refresh" tag have been used to "trick" search engine spiders and are now regarded as something that could hurt your ranking with some search engines.

Summary: What Meta tags are important?

The Title Tag: Is very important and has full support
The Meta Description: Is somewhat important and has some support
The Meta Keyword Tag: Is of low importance and has limited support
The Meta Robots Tag: Is only important if you don't want pages indexed
Other Meta Tags: Are not very important in search engine ranking

The Bottom Line

In conclusion, writing good meta tags is only one small part of optimizing your pages for higher positioning. This can be evidenced by the fact that there are many pages in the search engine indexes that rank high without even having meta tags at all. Having good content and using the correct keywords within your content is far more essential. Once you have good content, focus your attention on no more than three keywords per page and then use those words in the title, meta tags and repeatedly in the viewable text on the page.  The only truly important meta tag is the Title.

UK Cannabis Protesters and Police on Collision Course in Birmingham

With the 'One Big Smoke' legalise cannabis protest in Birmingham city centre only weeks away West Midlands police have undertaken a high profile stop & search campaign just a few miles away from Victoria Square, where advocates will gather on November 6th 2010 to protest for the legalisation of cannabis.

Click image to visit One Big Smoke on facebook

Police Posturing? About 10 miles away from Victoria Square West Midlands police are using drug dogs in stop & search operations around the Halesowen area. In actions meant to deter anti-social behaviour and drug dealers The Halesowen North Neigbourhood Policing Unit told reporters "Some good stop checks were conducted resulting in several small seizures of cannabis". So says west mids Police Sergeant Martin Hall.

“Over the weekend the team targeted drug activity around Shell Corner in Halesowen where it was assisted in its duties by a drug sniffer dog.

When asked if there had been any large seizures to show for the intensive and costly actions West Midlands Police repeated "Some good stop checks were conducted resulting in several small seizures of cannabis". We got the message and asked no more questions. One Big Smoke - Victoria Square Birmingham City Centre - November 6th 2010 from Mid-Day. Organisers are bringing together cannabis activists from all over the UK, who will meet at Victoria Square in Birmingham city centre from 13:00 (1pm). According to Albi Karms , one of the event organisers; "The idea behind the day is to promote the Legalisation of Cannabis for medical or any other use." "We are asking that everyone brings one pre-rolled "herbal cigarette" and nothing else illegal. At 1:30pm we plan to all light up together infront of the press to promote our cause." "Obviously there may be a police presence and obviously they may take action, however if you feel strongly enough about your right to smoke cannabis, we feel that the punishment will be insignificant in regards to the amount of good we will do for the cause." For more information please check out the 'One Big Smoke' facebook page and please, Tell Your Friends!! With Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg asking the public to tell him which laws need changing this is an ideal opportunity for you to have your say in UK drug policy.

David Cameron shows his ignorance about cannabis

Democracy is a great idea, but the problem is it gives us politicians who can be the most dishonest peddlers of misinformation on the planet. David Cameron showed just how badly politicians can mislead when he answered a question about cannabis law reform this week.
First of all, a reality check; In what now seems like a golden age of enlightenment Melanie Philips – herself the antithesis of enlightenment – in typical outraged style quoted David Cameron who said in 2002

Customs and Excise is supposed to keep the drugs out. The police and the courts are supposed to catch and punish users and dealers. It hasn’t worked.

Indeed, David Cameron, the leader of the ConDem government and sadly now our Prime Minister used to understand the futility of prohibition and before he took over the leadership of the Conservatives he was making some pretty intelligent comments about the need for drug law reform. Now he’s in a position to  actually do something about it it seems he’s changed from being a well informed person willing to consider change to a total bigot who justifies his actions on the back of deliberate misinformation.
That David Cameron  bases cannabis policy on total fabrication became clear last week when he answered a question  on Al Jazeera TV (watch it here) sent to him from “Owain R” from Lancashire concerning the legalisation of cannabis. Interestingly this was the second most popular subject people asked questions about so it’s clearly on the political agenda. Owain asked (the question happens at about 10min 40secs):

Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them?  Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?

There are a lot of ways Cameron could have answered that question, including honestly, but instead he answered:

Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.  But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer.  I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.

On the subject of medial cannabis Cameron said

That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.

And to sum up he said

But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.

Leaving aside the issue of education – which is after all about learning facts based on the truth, the rest of Cameron’s answer was just so wrong

I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging,

Cameron seems to be implying that the cannabis on sale these days is different to what used to be sold. This, of course, is the great “skunk scare” we’ve heard so much about; the claims that street cannabis is now “25 fold stronger” than it used to be (Sunday Independent) and that this is leading to all sorts of terrible harms as other gutter press tabloids like the Daily Mail have been claiming.
Of course most of us know these stupid claims made by papers are at best greatly exaggerated and more often just plain wrong, but there might have been a change in the THC/CBD profile of street cannabis leading to higher relative levels of THC. Of course, this change could be put down simply by the move from imported hash to home grown herbal varieties and in all honesty no-one can even be really sure it has actually happened, given the weakness of the data we have.
But Cameron is wrong to say cannabis today is “incredibly damaging”, it may cause problems for a vulnerable section of the population but compared to alcohol or tobacco – let alone many other prohibited drugs – it is a mild pussycat of a drug still. If is is causing harm to a vulnerable group it’s hard to see how treating that vulnerable group as criminals is going to help and it’s also hard to understand how making it impossible to know the strength, purity or strain of the cannabis purchased is supposed to help.
Of course the big twist of logic Cameron seems to be making is that if what he says is true and modern day cannabis is more dangerous than it used to be, his regime has caused that change!
We now have home grown herbal cannabis instead of imported North African hash because of prohibition – the crop eradication efforts and import restrictions we have pursued so enthusiastically have closed off this supply of old style hash and created the twisted market economics that have created the vast and highly profitable “skunk” growing industry. It is odd how prohibition supporters do not seem to understand that claiming cannabis has changed in recent years to become something more dangerous is an argument against prohibition, not in favour of it.
According to Cameron cannabis is

very, very toxic

Well, no it isn’t is the simple comment to that stupid remark. Cannabis has an amazingly low toxicity with virtually no overdose potential, this is not something that is in doubt.

and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.

Oh dear, Cameron plays the reefer madness card. He will be aware of the research carried out by Keele University for the Home Office which found

The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining.

If cannabis use did lead to an increased risk of mental illness this result would have been very different. Moreover the study covers the period when the change from imported  resin to home grown herbal took place. He doesn’t seem to understand the complex argument that surrounds cannabis and mental illness, which is far from the “cannabis makes you mad” concept he seems to have.
If there is anything to the mental health debate it’s around the strains of cannabis being sold – high THC/low CBD varieties, its about children getting their hands on it and its about the effect cannabis has on people who are already ill. These issues are either the result of the policy of prohibition or are made much worse by it. Prohibition has abdicated control of the commercial trade to organised crime and is certainly not drug control in any plain English use of the word “control”.
The issue of cannabis and mental health, as with the claims that it has become a more dangerous product, are good arguments for legalisation, not for continuing the cause of the problems which is the present policy of prohibition.
Then we get this old chestnut:

But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now.

The great claim of prohibition supporters is that their regime produces the lowest level of use and therefore the lowest level of harm. This is a claim with at best no evidence base and indeed much to suggest it is simply wrong, both in the claims it produces the lowest level of use and the lowest level of harm.
For a start, decriminalisation in Portugal and Holland has apparently not increased use, indeed use in those countries  is apparently lower than here or in the home of prohibition the USA. In any case, because prohibition makes sampling the user group in any scientifically valid way impossible, the claims that prohibition does actually reduce use to a minimum can’t ever be tested properly.
But of course a simplistic measure such as the rates of use is largely meaningless, what matters rather more is the nature of that use. Take as an example 100 adults drinking beer in a pub and 10 kids swigging vodka from a bottle in a derelict building; it’s pretty clear that the 10 kids are more of a problem then the 100 adult beer drinkers, but of course they all count as “alcohol users”. Prohibition would prevent the 100 adults drinking beer in the pub, thus greatly reducing the level of alcohol use, but would do nothing to prevent the kids swigging vodka in the derelict building – except that under prohibition the kids would now be swigging moonshine. So although prohibition would create a much lower level of overall use it would make the problem worse.
As regards medical cannabis he seems just as badly informed:

That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.

Of course he’s simply wrong, it isn’t a matter left to the medical authorities because the government is of the view that herbal cannabis has no medical value and has it placed in category 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
As to his conclusion

But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.

An answer based on a total lack of knowledge about the subject in hand it would seem. Cameron is determined to criminalise millions of people based on total and utter ignorance, that is something which should be of great concern to us all. This is especially unsettling because he knows from his own personal experience of having used cannabis that the deterrence effect of the law doesn’t work – because it didn’t work with him.
He also chose not to answer a very important part of Owain’s question

Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them?

The reason, as the government has now made clear is that alcohol and tobacco are culturally accepted. Now there is no provision for cultural acceptance in the Misuse of Drugs Act, the wording of which is quite clear that any drug which is, or appears to be, capable of misuse should come under the control of the act. The reason alcohol and tobacco are not is because the law makers – the politicians who created this madness – used those drugs themselves and didn’t consider them to be “real” drugs. It is nothing short of hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Owain actually framed his question very well, because he seems to understand that we do control alcohol and tobacco whereas we don’t control prohibited drugs. Understanding such a concept is clearly way beyond Cameron, which again is worrying given this guy is in such a position of power.
As a footnote to all this, an interesting article appeared in the Guardian this week about drug use in the UK – How the British fell out of love with drugs. It seems that since 2002 the levels of cannabis use have been dropping – totally independent of the changing classification and after rising throughout  the 1990′s. What could have happened to bring this about? As cannabis use rose throughout the time it was a class B substance (including failing to prevent David Cameron having a toke), fell when it was moved to C and continues to fall having been moved back to B it would seem the law has very little to do with it.
There are probably two reasons recreational drug use has been dropping since the start of this century. The first is pretty obvious really, the party’s over. For several years running up to the year 2000 it was party time (“party like its 1999″ as Prince put it) and for a brief period this country enjoyed itself fuelled by a sort of millennium madness – it was great fun, I was there! But it’s not the millennium any more and the party culture has withered, instead of a vibrant and fun musical scene we’ve had some pathetic role models such as Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse and and all there is to celebrate these days is the end of the week.
The other big influence has been the tobacco ban. Cannabis in particular was unfortunately entwined with this foul smelling, addictive and carcinogenic drug. In most ways the smoking ban has been literally a breath of fresh air and we are all much better off for it, in all ways apart from one;  socialising type entertianment has suffered badly. This is nowhere more true than in clubs and pubs, which now stink of stale beer and unwashed sweaty bodies. the lights which used to shine colourful beams through the smog you could cut with a knife now just hang like the coloured bulbs they actually are.
If any drug is a “gateway” it’s probably tobacco, it goes with everything and enhances the drug experience of just about all drugs. Without tobacco things just aren’t the same and drug use isn’t so enjoyable. Banning tobacco use in public places has possibly done more to reduce recreational use than the prohibition law could ever hope to do. It’s worth noting that almost all problematical drug users and just about all “cainers” – heavy drug users – smoke tobacco.
The fly in the ointment is that the drug use that’s dropped is in large part the non-problematic social type of drug use, the sort linked to culture and fun. The sort that hasn’t dropped is the damaging sort. As the Guardian article says

Sadly, the decline in the use of drugs has not brought a similar decline in the damage they do. Indeed, hospital admissions for drug-poisoning rose last year by 4.8%, and for mental health problems by 5.7%

Which takes us back to the simplistic concept of the lowest level of use leading to the lowest harm, it just isn’t true. What matters far more is the way drugs are used, the reason they are used and the type of people using them. It will be especially ironic if we now see a huge rise in mental illness amongst young people as cannabis use decreases, when no such increase was seen as it increased, it would be ironic but not perhaps unexpected.