Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Tag: Politics (Page 52 of 57)

Alcoholic Elephant in the Smoking Room

2 August 2007 / / 2 Comments

When the news came that Cannabis was to be reclassified as a class B drug, I had expected there to be something of a reaction from the British Blogosphere, which has a healthy Libertarian bias. Back in the office after a week without proper internet, I found precious little online writing on the subject. I reasoned that this might have had something to do with the Lancet Report (and podcast) into the effects of cannabis use, and the associated risk of psychosis.
However, I had reckoned without Tim Worstal and his excellent statistics.

So, does 0.2% of users being harmed pass our test? 0.05%? 0.01%? Even at that higher number it’s still vastly lower as a percentage than the numbers harmed by either tobacco or alcohol: and yet they are both legal. I’d wager very long odds that it’s lower than the STD infection rate on one night stands: which are also legal. I’d even take an evens bet on whether it’s less dangerous than playing golf in a thunderstorm which while stupid is also legal.
…
Just another example of bansturbation I’m afraid, this time it’s the social authoritarians in the Tory Party getting their rocks off over the matter. Heaven forfend that the citizenry should actually be free to go to hell in their own preferred manner.

I think the comparison with alchohol is important here, because it highlights an essential contradiction at the heart of the debate. Both alcohol and smoking are legal, despite being harmful. Why not cannabis too?
Throughout, it has been noted that the skunk on the streets is far more powerful and harmful than the milder forms that our cabinet smoked as students. Aside from looking like a convenient get-out clause for those who have admitted to a toke or two twenty years ago, it also ignores the fact that there are many different types of cannabis in circulation.
In any case, is the undoubted potency of modern skunk an argument for legalisation and regulation, or further crimminalisation and marginalisation? The recent orthodoxy claims the latter, and says that because cannabis is so harmful, it should be banned. But that is analagous to saying that alcohol should be banned because Moonshine is so toxic! Just as there is a world of difference between the causual, weekend wine-drinker, and the serious alcoholic with his Vodka or (worse) bottle of Meths… so there is a difference between a weekend spliff in the garden, and a heavy skunk-user putting himself at risk of psychosis. It would be nice if someone stated that either drug, in moderation, does make the parties and the conversations a little more interesting (to the partakers, at least)… but that consumption to excess can lead to a lack of productivity, and then serious damage to one’s health. The absolutist, binary debate on this issue is unhelpful and unlikely to wash with the young people who need to be so well informed.
I think a more compelling argument against casual drug use, is that it provides financial support to gangsters. The usual mitigation for cannabis use is that it is a victimless crime. At present, however, there is no way of knowing if this is actually true. Illegal drugs do not come with a ‘Fair Trade’ certificate to reassure you that no human-traffickers, Russian Mafioso or Jamaican Yardies have profited (or indeed, been murdered) during its production and bagging. When politicians admit to trying cannabis at university, they are always asked whether they ‘inhaled’, but never if they knew where the drugs came from. This latter question would, I believe, be more pertinent. That few politicians would be able to answer it is probably the main reason why this particular argument is sidelined in the debate.
Surely a more sensible approach to the issue would be to legalise cannabis, and then regulate it and tax it in the same manner as alchohol and tobacco. This is the only sure way to reduce the potency of the drugs being consumed. Better information about the strength and origin of their cannabis will help people to make a more informed choice about how much to consume, and lead to a reduction in associated health problems.

We can’t turn them away

25 July 2007 / / 12 Comments

This time, I am behind the blog cycle, rather than the mainstream news cycle! Many others have already linked to Dan Hardie’s campaign to ensure that all Iraqis who have worked for British forces are given asylum if they ask for it.

There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra. The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally unacceptable.
The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four news, notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra.

Dan suggests we write to our MPs, and even provides some handy text that you can paste into a letter or e-mail.
I recall that the plight of Iraqis was one of the first arguments against Tony Blair’s account of the war. When the WMDs failed to appear, the reasons for war quickly shifted to the brutality of the Saddam regime. While this might have been a convincing argument for many, it was certainly not a convincing reason for the government, who had denied many asylum applications from Iraqi before the war. It was therefore misleading and duplicitous for Blair to cite this as a reason post hoc.
However, the current British policy towards foreign nationals who help the armed services is unsurprising. The Ghurka regiment has for many years been mistreated by the government, with former soldiers denied citizenship, or even a pension on equal terms with other British servicemen.
Interestingly, the recent successful campaign to allow one former ghurka (a holder of the Victoria Cross, no less) to be given UK citizenship was also propagated online. The VC Hero site was set up by Tul Bahadur Pun’s solicitors, and a online campaign added political pressure. So Dan Hardie’s initiative stands a good chance of success.

Thuggery in Sedgefield

20 July 2007 / / 5 Comments

Well well. I’m watching the by-election results on TV. The BNP saw fit to heckle and slow-hand clap the Labour Candidate Phil Wilson as he gave his by-election victory speech in Sedgefield.
One of the usually decent things about the democratic process is the (short) period of politeness and respect that follows an election result. In the immediate aftermath of an election, it is unseemly to criticise and abuse a candidate, especially one who has just been elected as an MP with a large majority. To do so is to insult and abuse that majority of citizens who have made their choice. By making a racket as Wilson spoke, the BNP expose themselves as arrogant thugs.
They even boo’ed when the Tory candidate gave his best wishes to Wilson’s family. Ugly.

The Digital Revolution

10 June 2007 / / 1 Comment

One striking aspect of Taking Liberties was the art direction. There’s a lot of computer generated imagery, which has been beautifully designed by Nexus Productions. Much of it is inspired by 1930s propaganda imagery and the letterpress aesthetic of printing and pampleteering (a visual style I’ve been toying with on this blog too, to much derision).
The Nexus animations are very effective at conveying the sense of oppression and fascism that the film-makers want to hint at. As an added bonus, it is also a very effective means of covering vast chunks of screen-time. Finding the right film footage to get your point across is often very difficult and always costly. Even stock footage from the BBC and similar organisations is incredibly expensive. For a film-maker working to a tight budget, animation can be a very useful method of getting your point across.
A good example of this is the short film What Barry Says by Knife Party, which is similar in style to the Taking Liberties animations… both in visual style, and in the manner in which they ‘illustrate’ what is essentially a political essay, ‘telling’ rather than ‘showing’.

Uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan was struck by the aesthetics of What Barry Says too:

It contains Chomsky-esque platitudes about a new American fascism blah blah blah. 9/11 is a response to American imperialism; North Korea is a victim, etc. But its use of graphics and editing is extremely skilled propaganda: Nazi-like in its concern with aesthetics. Somehow I feel the irony was lost on it creators.

I totally disagree. Andrew acknowledges that the film-makers are seeking to establish a conceptual link between the facist regimes of the past, and the US Government under President George W Bush. It is entirely appropriate that they choose an aesthetic that is reminiscent of fascist designs. The self-awareness is definitely true in the case of Taking Liberties: When the messages turns from what negative things have happened, to what positive things could be done in response, the design becomes flourescent and modern instead.

The Independence Debate

21 April 2007 / / 1 Comment

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the launch of a Fabian pamphlet by Gordon Brown. Stronger Together puts the case for continuing the union between Scotland and the rest of Britain. Embarrassingly, Gordon and I were wearing the same tie, but that did not seem to put him off his speech.
There was a muffled scoff during the Q&A session, when Douglas Alexander suggested that, even though the SNP were ahead in the polls, the strength of the Labour argument (or rather, the weakness of the SNP argument) would shine through. Interestingly, however, it looks like this might be happening. According to The Times:

It is only in the past fortnight — largely because of previous opinion poll findings — that Scotland has had to ask itself whether the pleasure of giving Tony Blair a last kicking is worth the price of putting the SNP in office. It is not.

I wonder how much of this is down to Brown and Alexander’s (and McConnell’s) powers of persuasion, and how much is down to a change in voter tactics, influenced by opinion polls. There is no doubt that in every election a kind of electoral Heisenberg effect occurs, whereby advanced polling that seeks to predict the result, actually alters it. I’ve often worried that this is anti-democratic, although I suppose making a choice is as much about who you do not want to lead you, as opposed to who you do. Recall once again the old adage about governments that lose elections, rather than oppositions that win them…
Much of the Fabian pamphlet focuses on the econmoic benefits that Scotland gains from being in The Union, and how much would be lost if the people chose Independence instead. This may be persuasive, but I cannot help feeling that the economic argument should not matter. Dyed-in-the-wool Nationalists and Unionists alike cite a greater, moral imperative for their point of view, whatever it happens to be. Never mind the administration costs of leaving the Union: I have more time for the argument which says that Scotland and England should remain together because we share common values (whatever they may be). Just like marriage, these links should be worth saving, even if greater economic prosperity were to be found through a divorce.
Likewise, I think the most honest Nationalist argument is that which says that the Scots and English are culturally different. It is their belief in this premise which motivates their political activity, not some economic calculation. As it happens, I disagree with them, as I tried to point out in a post at The Sharpener. I think the notions of Scottishness and Englishness have converged somewhat in these past 300 years. This is by no means proven, however, and the independence debate should be fought over this ideological battleground, rather than over some calculus of the North Sea oil revenues.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑