It’s time to end the drug war

 

According to a fairly recent Gallup poll, 50% of Americans are now in favor of legalising marijuana, a number that is up from the 12% that supported legalisation back in 1969. A growing number of Americans are also in favour of decriminalising the simple possession of all illegal drugs. Growing support for the legalisation of marijuana is so wide in fact, that support now includes endorsements from some very unlikely public figures. It’s hard to believe, but television evangelist Pat Robertson has come out not only in favor of decriminalisation, but for all out legalisation. “Regulate it like alcohol”, he says emphatically. Indeed, we are living in changing times, for it is clear that we are witnessing a monumental sea change in public opinion that has expanded exponentially beyond that of young liberals and libertarians. The common denominator has become such: End the drug war!

Marijuana possession is a victimless crime wherein the only real solution, both economically and morally speaking, is to tax and regulate it as we would any other commodity.  We need substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration. Many people of sensible means now recognise the war on drugs for what it has become: a drain on society both socially and fiscally.  In this time of budget cuts and furloughs, it is time for us to take another look at how we deal with drug use and abuse amongst otherwise law abiding citizens. The costs have simply become too onerous a burden for cash strapped states to endure. Many people want to know why we continue to dump so much time and money into a war that has clearly failed to achieve its objective.

Whilst we have witnessed a sea change in public opinion in the United States, many of our elected government officials do not appear to mirror the needs and interests of their own constituents. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden recently came out against the decriminalisation of drug possession while attending the sixth annual Summit of the Americas that was held in Cartagena, Columbia in April.  When questioned on the current status of the drug war, President Obama replied: “I, personally, and my administration’s position is that legalisation is not the answer.” Several South American leaders, however, have highlighted the need for a return to a more pragmatic approach in dealing with drug use and abuse by declaring the need for drug decriminalisation.  This is the type of enlightened thinking that harbours the potential to usher in an era which has long been overdue. It is time to alleviate some of the pressure that has been foisted upon our neighbors and friends that live and die in many of the war torn nation states that lie directly south of the American border. They have quite clearly had enough of what’s not working, and we should support them in this new endeavour to curb the violence that has claimed so many lives.

Though this sea change may appear to be a new and novel idea, there used to exist a time in pre-prohibition America where one could openly patronise opium and tea dens, free of legal and moral retribution. Amazingly, the sky did not fall and though there were addicts, no plague of mass indoctrination to the counter drug culture was exhibited.  This little known history disavows the prohibitionists’ argument at its core, for legalisation does not equate with higher consumption. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now. We only need to look to the likes of Portugal, where all drugs were decriminalised 11 years ago. As a result of this bold move, drug abuse in now down by half. That’s a fact and no one can dispute it.

We have witnessed a direct correlation with the proliferation of the industrial prison complex industry in conjunction with the dawn of the modern drug war. Law enforcement can no longer focus solely on what’s important: public safety.  What the people have been subjected to is a stark increase in violent crime, human rights abuses, and blight in many of America’s impoverished neighbourhoods and beyond. One in 10 African American men in their 30s is incarcerated on any given day.  Blacks and Latinos account for three-fourths of those imprisoned for drug related offenses.  Arrests for drug offenses have increased exponentially since 1980, but I and everyone else knew that already. All that we need to do is to take a look around and there lies the truth in bold neon lights.

I had the pleasure of engaging in a thought provoking conversation with an acquaintance of mine recently. We talked mostly about violent crime, the proliferation of gun homicides, and the seemingly never ending dilemma of violence in our cities. In describing the neighbourhood that he grew up in, he mentioned how there only used to be about one shooting a month, as opposed to what we are now witnessing on the nightly news. The murder rate has statistically become closer to almost one a day in some cities like New Orleans. “It just never used to be this bad; there used to be more black owned businesses, and now we just have all of this shooting going on all around us all of the time; this is because of the drug war”, he stated emphatically. My acquaintance is not a criminologist (nor am I), nor is he a statistician; he doesn’t need to be. He has lived and grown up in the lower ninth ward of New Orleans for all of the 50+ years that he has inhibited this green earth. He has witnessed firsthand the war on drugs, therefore I believe him when he tells me that he knows what he’s talking about.

So while the failed experiment of alcohol prohibition has hopefully been left to the dustbins of historical reference, the idea of prohibition itself has not officially been dealt its final death blow, for it continues to proliferate despite the massive change in public opinion. It is easy to naively assume, however, that we are moving ever more close to achieving the objective of a post-prohibitionist world, for public has made it clear what the trajectory of the 21st century should entail. Though we have witnessed many signs of hope that appear on the surface to indicate that we are in fact moving ever closer to the decriminalisation of drug possession, it is clear that the opposing forces are as strong and as determined as ever.  As of 2012, 16 states, along with the District of Columbia, have legalised medical marijuana and 14 states across the county have decriminalised the simple possession of small amounts of cannabis.

At the federal level, a very different approach has been taking place under the Obama administration. Thus far, there have been more than 100 federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries across the country, an impressive track record that makes the efforts of Obama’s predecessor pale in comparison.  So while the public perception of the war on drugs continues to evolve, it appears that there are two very distinctive and opposing forces currently at work. In the meantime, gross injustices continue to be foisted upon many of our nation’s poor and un-connected in what appears to be a feckless war with no end.

America has the highest incarceration in the world, beating out such countries as Iran, China, and Germany.  Among the 50 states, Louisiana is ranked at number one, with the highest incarceration rate in the United States, and thus the world. This shocking statistic seems to coincide with the observations of my acquaintance from the lower ninth ward, for he lives in one of the most dangerous places in the world where it is an exception, rather than the rule, not to have a brush with the law. The blight in some neighbourhoods that has resulted is simply unfathomable in a country that claims to be as advanced as ours. Something clearly has gone wrong, for instead of progressing into the 21st century with dignity, it is clear that in many ways we continue to revert backwards. The drug war is largely responsible for this disparity; it’s time that we end it once and for all.

 

Student Loan Debt, Insert Sarcastic Slow Clap Here

We all remember the student protests and everything else that came with the government’s decision to boost tuition fees up to £9,000 a year. And the Liberal Democrats are paying for most of it. But there was something that was forgotten in the debate over education: the government promised that these additional costs to the state would peak at about £50bn in 2030.

Student protests

Well that may have been a little bit of a miscalculation/error/blatant lie as a new study by Andrew McGettigan, for the Intergenerational Foundation, has revealed that it could be around the £100bn mark instead. And he did this by measuring the potential impact of allowing students to pay back only if they are earning at least £21,000 a year.

If this is true – which at the moment it looks like it’s turning out to be – then we can easily see why. Let’s look at why there are so many people going to university in the first place. This originally started a few years ago when the Labour Party thought it would be a good idea to get around 50% of all British teenagers into university. So they did that. But when the economic situation deteriorated they realised that allowing so many students to enter university at £3,000 a year wasn’t really that sustainable anymore as universities generally can’t afford to take on that many students at that level whilst sustaining themselves.

So the latest government took a little bit of a u-turn and decided to let universities charge up to £9,000 a year; with only a few universities with special consideration being allowed to charge the full price. So what happened? Inevitably, the main universities charged the full amount, but then everybody decided to follow and “special consideration” seemed to melt away like recent voter turnouts. Ok, that didn’t go to plan. That then led to a 9% reduction in the number of people applying to university on the next application cycle.

But the problem is they have also raised the level at which students have to start paying back their £9,000 a year student loan, to £21,000. This would be fine if economic times were great and people were riding to work on golden horses, but that’s not the case. So now the government is lending out £9,000 a year to students who won’t be able to ever pay back that loan.

Let’s look at the facts. £9,000 a year + maintenance loans for many = £27,000 minimum for the minority of students who didn’t need maintenance loans. Students need to have a job paying £21,000 a year in order to start paying back their student loan. Now take a look at the starter jobs these days. Those jobs are offering salaries of between £16,000 and £18,000, most of the time. So the student would have to remain in that job for quite a few years before hitting that £21,000 threshold.

The government now has to wait for their loan.

Another problem, though, is that many students have been misled. They are taking degrees that are completely worthless. And, yes, media studies is a worthless degree, and no I don’t care about which teacher made themselves a success from it, they are in the tiny minority. Those degrees won’t get them jobs. And that’s not all, even those students who are doing a degree that happens to be worth a damn have been misled as they believe that a degree warrants them a job. This means they will have absolutely zero experience as they are thinking that they are going to swagger in the door and kick that poor uneducated, working class buffoon out.

I read a BBC report last year that talked about how many employers find that graduates are not ready for the real world of work and can’t even do basic things. That sort of thing is rife, and it’s precisely why many graduates are out of work. Employers are rarely interested in students with a degree and little experience. A degree is a piece of paper, and not a lot else.

The unemployment rate for young people in this country is disgraceful, and many of them are graduates. So how does the government think it’s going to get its money back anytime soon? The economic crisis isn’t going to fix itself, and developments in the Eurozone only look to be making things worse.  The answer is that the government won’t be getting its money back at all. Instead, the burden will be shifted back to the public, so now you’ve just increased the deficit due to your pathetic handling of the student loan situation.

It makes me wonder why they just didn’t keep university funding up and then leave the fees alone instead. Or, alternatively, they could have just stopped promoting the idea that every teenager should go to university. That’s nothing but a blind effort to get these young people off of the unemployment figures. The lower the figures the better the political situation for the government. You have to pity the saps who fell for it, though, don’t you?

 

What do you think about the current situation with university education, and how do you think they should have gone about it?

A Measure of Confusion

The increasing panic to get the UK – or at the very least London – looking spruced and respectable in time for the Olympics has shown itself in the somewhat unexpected form of Lord Howe of Aberavon (former Foreign Secretary under our own rust-topped Iron Lady of the 80s, Maggie Thatcher), as he demanded that the UK stop “dithering” and make the full switch from the imperial to the metric system of measurement before our Continental guests come over and laugh at us.

In a rant worthy of Enoch Powell (well, almost), Lord Howe claimed that the UK’s reluctance to pick one system over the other and stick to it “increases cost, confuses shoppers, leads to serious misunderstandings, causes accidents, confuses our children’s education and, quite bluntly, puts us all to shame.”

Aside from the laughable irony of a Lord calling for Britain to cast off the shackles of the Empire, I think that perhaps Howe is overreacting. I grew up with both systems and, whilst I couldn’t immediately tell you how many gallons to the litre (or even how many pints to the gallon, if I’m honest), I know well enough the measurements I need to use regularly and I can look up the ones I don’t (mille grazie, Google). Metric has been gradually replacing Imperial without children coming home from school in floods of tears, and presumably it will continue to do so until we’re all working exclusively in units of ten. If things have been happening organically and with minimal trauma, why try to push through a change now?

As a member of Howe’s “rudderless and bewildered majority”, floundering helplessly in a sea of grams and ounces, I would also call into question the wisdom of attempting to rush such a huge change through in time for the Olympics – if this were to happen, I imagine that foreign visitors really would see a lot of confused and befuddled Brits. Personally, the uncertainty over whether London’s transport network will be able to cope with the massive influx of humans is more than enough to be worrying about at this late stage (particularly if you’re a regular commuter into the capital). Add to that the allegation that someone recently challenged the security of the Olympic site by smuggling a fake bomb in, and I doubt that complaints over the serving of pints vs half-litres will even make the Oddly Enough column. It’s too big an undertaking to attempt in too little time. It’d be like deciding to repaint the kitchen an hour before the dinner-party.

Home Office minister Lord Henley, who was involved in the recent debate over the use of these two systems, was quoted as saying that he wasn’t convinced that the British public saw any real need to change the status quo. I would go further and suggest that the British public doesn’t even care.

The image of an esteemed Life Peer and experienced politician worrying that smug visitors from the mainland will be wandering around London this summer, discussing the failings of our measurement system in hushed tones behind cupped hands, is bizarre and ridiculous. Moreover, Howe’s assertion that our dual system will confuse visitors is nothing short of offensive.

Perhaps Lord Howe’s zeal is fuelled solely by a selfless desire to help strangers; more likely, though, his national pride is the driving force (another spot of irony, there).

Or maybe he just objects on aesthetic grounds to those rulers that have inches up one edge and centimetres down the other.

The Multimillion Pound Art Sale and the Joke that is Contemporary Art

If you take a look at the picture I have provided you just below this paragraph then what would you say about this example of contemporary art? Painted by an eight-year-old, bland and boring, basic and amateurish? I would say all of those things, but what would you say if I told you that someone paid £53.8m for it?

Red, Orange, Yellow
The 'masterpiece' on show.

It’s no joke; somebody broke the record for the highest price ever paid for a piece of contemporary art at auction.

The piece itself was painted by Mark Rothko and is entitled “Orange, Red, Yellow”. And if you look at some of his other work then you will discover that he has made a fortune on the same idea. This is just different shades of colour on a canvas in quite frankly basic and pathetic shapes.

When I want to see art I want to see skill. And that’s what one of the dictionary definitions of art is: “Skilled.” Leonardo Da Vinci, Picasso, Cezanne, Botticelli, all of these were skilled at what they did. This is an insult to art and this is precisely why many people believe that contemporary art is utter trash. I’m one of these people and I just hope that whoever paid for this realises how stupid he is.

And I know that fans of this are going to try and put people off with their elitist rhetoric about how some people are too stupid to see the true meaning in it. But you can find meanings in anything if you like, it doesn’t make the item you are taking a meaning from art, though.

Take a stereotypical yellow, number two test pencil, with eraser, and here is my meaning for it:

Number two pencil

“This pencil demonstrates the transitioning of the past to the modern day as this tool has been transformed from the creative purposes it was once instilled with to the rigid structuring of modern day life. The point is the crowning glory of what can symbolise the pointlessness of the modern educational system and the stifling of creative thought. And, yet, at the same time, the fact that it creates these feelings is a demonstration of artistic genius in itself.”

I could go on, but it demonstrates that you can see a meaning in even the most mundane things.

I’ve also noticed something else quite interesting as well. If we look back to the past, and I mean centuries prior to this one, the skilled were praised. The skilled were praised in a society that was rather primitive. And those skilled artists of today are still incredibly difficult to replicate in our modern age, without the aid of computers. But as we have advanced throughout the ages we have actually opted for more primitive forms of art; and this is what we call contemporary art.

The only thing that is skilled here is the fact that Mark Rothko managed to convince someone to pay that much for something that was most likely painted within a day.

This is nothing but a few colours splashed on to the page in a childlike manner. As we advance further, are artists just going to debase themselves further in a sad attempt to seem different?

That’s something that has always bothered me about the art industry. They are so desperate to move away from mainstream society that they are willing to damage their own art because of it.

This further enhances my view that contemporary art is based off of nothing but connections and who has the most cash. Granted, to an extent, it was always like this. But no artist can succeed with things like this without having powerful and influential connections and lots of money to do the talking.

Child painting
Mark Rothko kindly letting the world see him work on his next masterpiece to continue a long and worthwhile career.

 

PTSD – the long road home

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

…So said Mahatma Gandhi, but there are other means of discerning a country’s moral compass. Some would offer a more human example and point to the way a nation treats the armed forces personnel who make it back home.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously polarised society and reacquainted it with the concept of ambiguity. Ed Milliband, the leader of the Labour Party – the opposition to the Coalition Government for the next few years – has called the Iraq invasion a mistake.

At a time when fewer British people than ever seem to support the continued military presence in Afghanistan (and Iraq before it), conversely, support for the UK armed forces personnel has never been higher.

At Wootten Bassett in Wiltshire, UK, crowds regularly lined the street, respectfully silent as the fallen were conveyed through from the local RAF base. The media has also played its part, keeping the spotlight on those who have suffered horrific injuries, in the course of their duties, and who now strive to rebuild their lives.

There is another category of injured personnel, which harkens back to the First World War – those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. PTSD is not exclusive to those who have been in combat situations. It can affect anyone – military or civilian – who is or perceives themselves to be in a traumatic incident: accident, attack or abuse.

In WW1 it was called ‘Shell Shock’ and in WW2 personnel were sometimes branded as having a ‘Lack of Moral Fibre’. The realities are far more complicated. A range of symptoms includes: hyper-vigilance, mood swings, depression, aggression, anxiety, phobias, an inability to handle changes to routine and flashbacks. PTSD affects not only the service personnel, but also their family, friends and their day-to-day relationships.

In the UK, a charity called Combat Stress, founded in 1919, offers short-stay clinical treatment and community outreach services. They also offer help and advice to the families of Veterans. In the US, there is a National Center for PTSD.

But the very nature of PTSD means that sufferers can often have difficulty recognising their condition and taking the steps to get the help they and their families need.

One person who found his own way forward is a friend of mine, former serviceman Villayat SnowMoon Wolf Sunkmanitu. He was stationed in Northern Ireland and his PTSD went undiagnosed for years. While being supported by Combat Stress, he has also explored his condition through photography and poetry in Words of a Wolf: Poetry of a Veteran, in which he aims to raise awareness of PTSD and encourage other PTSD sufferers and their families to seek help and support.

Some of the funds raised from the sale of the book will go towards financing a national exhibition of poetry and photography with the same aims.

For information about PTSD:

http://www.combatstress.org.uk

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/

http://www.ptsdresolution.org/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdfence/424/424we13.htm

Words of a Wolf is available in bookshops and online. Villayat’s blog also features regular pieces about his ongoing journey.

 


Tobacco Control Scotland Admits There Are No Real Deaths From Tobacco

The chairman of The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP), Bill Gibson, filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act regarding deaths from smoking and second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure.The requested information was:

a)      All information on the actual number of adult smokers in Scotland for the years 2005 -2009 and the      source of the information, each years  total to be shown.
b)      All information on the smoking cessation rates in Scotland for the years 2005-2009 and the source of    the information, each years total to be shown.
c)     All information on how the smoking cessation rates were calculated.
d)      All information on actual deaths in Scotland attributable to Second Hand Smoke otherwise known as       “Passive Smoking” , “Sidestream         Smoke” or “Environmental Tobacco Smoke” from the years 2000 –   2009
e)      All information held on “Third Hand Smoke”.

(For those unfamiliar with the term, third hand smoke is the smell left on a smoker or in a room that has had smoking occur in it. More information can be found here).

For years it has been asserted by those in the pro-choice movement that the deaths attributed to smoking are essentially fabricated – there are no real bodies that have been counted, but rather the estimated figures are created through a certain set of paradigms, from computer programs to dubious classifications – such as lumping any death of a smoker as a ‘smoking-related death’.

The FOI response went a long way in officially validating this, by saying that “We hold no information about actual deaths due to passive smoking. It is not possible to give precise figures on deaths resulting from tobacco use. However, it is estimated that each year more than 13,000 people in Scotland die from smoking-related diseases”.

And of course, by defining certain illnesses as smoking-related ones, there is a lot of room for manouevere to classify any of those deaths as a result of smoking. The FOI response further explained that “The numbers of deaths attributed to passive smoking are primarily estimated from studies comparing the rates of deaths due to smoking attributable diseases among similar people who have not had such exposure.” Or, in other words, using the wholly unscientific method of turning statistics and mathematical figures into real-life dead bodies. Which, of course, is not the way the world works.

This also leads to the questions: Is a full-scale war against smokers warranted when the only supporting evidence is hypothetical numbers generated from even more estimated numbers? If policy-makers are confident enough that smoking kills enough people to all but prohibit it, where are all the bodies?