tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80924306361859664362024-02-20T21:22:05.037+00:00Ewan has something to sayFormerly Ewan's liberal musings. Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-7570553450152868392017-08-18T10:58:00.002+01:002017-08-18T10:58:31.822+01:00We're a party for all, not of the centre. We're a party for government, not for opposition.The Liberal Democrats are standing in front of an open goal. We were standing in front of it in June as well, it's just we seemed to be stubbornly facing in the other direction.<br />
<br />
Never again should we campaign in a general election saying that we are not interested in power. What is the point of drafting a manifesto if you have promised not to deliver any of the policies within it as a party of government? Where is the potential to inspire in aspiring to be a party of opposition?<br />
<br />
The offering in June was dismal. The Liberal Democrats should always aspire to be a party of government. If we get enough seats, we negotiate hard to get the best deal for the country as a coalition partner. But we should not aspire to being a minor partner. First and foremost, we aspire to governing alone, then as the largest party in a coalition, then as a coalition partner. Seismic shifts can happen in politics, but they can only happen if you plant seeds in the imagination of the voters.<br />
<br />
The notion that the Liberal Democrats can fill a gaping hole in the centre of British politics is a timid nonsense. The path to power is to take votes from left and right, rich and poor, by presenting the truism that we truly seek to represent the best interests of every citizen of this country. Not just the workers, and not just the bosses and those that aspire to achieving and maintaining wealth.<br />
<br />
Our opposition to Brexit makes us the party of the economy, of growth, of jobs, of science, of security. Any sensible business owner, employee in the financial sector, or person in management must surely see that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a conservative vote to protect their way of life against those who would stubbornly jeopardise it in their pursuit of Brexit.<br />
<br />
The workers on the front line must also surely see that the Liberal Democrats are the ones that will enhance their job security.<br />
<br />
If there is an election before Brexit negotiations are complete, we should stand to reverse Brexit, to return Britain to a path of prosperity, to punish those who lied to you in order to persuade you to vote against your interests. If we win, Brexit stops, the economy recovers, the investment returns, and we have a chance of saving our NHS with the enormous tax monies that will accrue as investment, trade and tourism floods in from our mightily relieved European allies. If we are in power as a coalition, then the people should have their say on any Brexit deal, but with far more information, and much more of it factual, than was the case last time round.<br />
<br />
Only 1 in 4 MPs supported Brexit before the referendum. The rest voted through article 50 not to respect democracy, but because they fear democracy. Democrats represent the interests of their constituents. Cowards wave through things they know will harm their constituents because of their own selfish political interests.<br />
<br />
If we call this cowardice what it is, if we promise revenge against the liars who promised £350 million a week for the NHS, if we promise always to study the evidence and stand up for the interests of the people and not cower when confronted with those who shout the loudest, then maybe the Liberal Democrats can be the party that brings trust back into politics. Maybe the Liberal Democrats can be the next government of these islands.<br />
<br />
Look left, look right, recognise there's votes to be had right across the political spectrum, and tell them we aspire for power because we know that our policies will best serve the interests of all the people.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-47908173298959439172017-03-13T08:50:00.003+00:002017-03-13T08:50:57.075+00:00Preventing drug-related deaths speech<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Hi all, just posting my unedited speech to Scottish Lib Dem conference for anyone who's interested:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Good afternoon conference.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">The substance of this motion covers two main areas of concern. Deaths associated with MDMA-type drugs, and deaths associated with opiates such as heroin and methadone.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">MDMA or ecstasy deaths had been averaging under 5 a year in Scotland between 2008 and 2012, but in the last three years the rate has jumped to 15 a year as the strength of ecstasy available has increased.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Regan MacColl took a fatal overdose of ecstasy in the Arches nightclub in 2014. After this tragedy the police instructed the club to bring in more stringent searches on the door.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">We have to ask ourselves though what effect an escalation in security and enforcement will achieve in a nightclub queue. If a teenager is caught with ecstasy – a class A drug – they face potentially up to 7 years in prison and an unlimited fine. This is not helpful to that teenager, and it's not helpful to society. The deterrent effect isn't working. People are still taking drugs, they're just taking drugs away from places like The Arches with previously excellent safety records.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">But greater enforcement can also bring tragedy beyond a criminal record.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">17-year-old Emily Lyon had taken some MDMA on the way to a music event at the O2 in London last June. She had another dose with her that she planned to take later in the evening, but she hadn't expected there to be sniffer dogs on the door. Worried that her drugs would be detected, she consumed them earlier than planned. She was rushed to hospital feeling unwell and overheated before 10pm, but was dead before 1 in the morning.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">A drug overdose killed Emily Lyon, but dumb enforcement of dumb law was the reason she died that night.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">So what are the alternatives to enforcement?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I'm sure we've all seen warnings about high strength drugs in circulation in the media. In the UK these warnings tend to be issued after one or more people have overdosed or died, and the drugs batch have been traced and tested. In the Netherlands, they issue warnings without prerequisite tragedy because people are able to submit drugs for testing at one of many centres around the country.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Happily there is beginning to be progress on drug testing in the UK, with the charity “the Loop”, beginning to carry out testing at festivals and other events. They test pills and powders brought to them by members of the public, and give them advice on the content and strength of the drugs and sensible ways to stay safe.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">It's a model that will save lives and it should be rolled out across Scotland as well.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">It's not ecstasy that is the major contributor to Scotland's drug related death rate. It's heroin and other opiates that contributed to 6 in every 7 deaths in 2015.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Our drug-related death rate is far and away the worst in Europe, and while other nations' rates are steady or in decline, Scotland's has been steadily increasing, nearly tripling in the last 20 years.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">If we weren't ignoring drug users these statistics would be Scotland's great shame, but heroin users are the last section of society that suffer from widespread prejudice, to the point of revulsion. The attention paid to them by politicians sadly reflects that fact. This has to stop.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">As a party we have taken great strides in promoting the cause of those in society suffering from poor mental health and done our best to break down the stigma suffered. Research consistently suggests that two thirds of problematic drug users are self-medicating survivors of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. We can not claim to be the party of mental health if we leave drug users suffering in the shadows.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">At long last, safe injection sites and heroin assisted treatment are being considered for Glasgow. But we have to recognise the relative implications of these measures.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Safe injection facilities allow people to use heroin in a safe environment with medical support. They are however, using street heroin, so if the batch of heroin they are using contains clostridium as happened in Scotland in 2000, or anthrax as in 2009, then they'll still be injecting clostridium or anthrax into their veins. These infections killed 34 people. Is this the model we want?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Problematic drug users are also the most impoverished group in society. Take normal poverty, then add a £100 a day inflexible need to consume a drug. Safe injection sites don't alleviate this poverty. The users still need to find that £100 from somewhere.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I became passionate about drug policy after watching a documentary many years ago now. A young woman was being asked by a tv crew why she continued to work the streets while someone was murdering prostitutes in her town. She replied “I need the money. I need the money.” Paula Clennell was herself murdered by a serial killer less than a week later.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">You can no more snap out of heroin addiction than you can snap out of depression. Why should we force users to abandon their moral standards in pursuit of money to buy drugs. They almost certainly didn't start using drugs thinking that robbery, shoplifting, working the streets or drug-dealing was ok. How much of the self-medication with heroin is now for the shame they feel or the pain they've suffered from finding the money to pay for it?</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">We don't have to make them find that money. If we just provided the heroin in a clinic, then the user can stop breaking the law, can start thinking about jobs, family and housing. In all the studies done in many countries now, heroin is more effective and more cost effective than methadone at helping people get their lives back on track.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">It also has the potential to get communities back on track. Put a clinic in a community where there are high levels of drug use and watch the dealers pack it in, watch the shops thrive without the shoplifting, see the red light district empty at night.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Where's the proof this would happen you may ask. Well it's happened already, in Merseyside in the 80s and 90s. Sadly the world wasn't ready for the drug war to end just yet, and the prescribing of heroin to addicts was rolled back. But between 1982 and 1995 Dr. John Marks didn't have a drug related death among his patients. Within 2 years of his prescribing practice ending 41 of his 450 patients were dead.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Heroin clinics work, and they're popular. The Swiss got to vote on it in a referendum and supported the policy by over 2 to 1.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">We've tried locking up addicts, it's time to declare a war on drugs and try locking the heroin up instead, and just let the users come in for regular visits.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">I've no experience of drugs myself. If you can't relate to the problematic drug user, then maybe you can relate to their family, as I do, having experienced a loved one go down an unexpected and distressing path. They finally found the right drug for my brother's mental illness and I got my brother back. There are over 60,000 problem drug users in Scotland. That's tens of thousands of families facing the dilemma no family should face. Do you hold your loved one close, and risk the damage that could do to you and the rest of your family, or do you push them away, and live a half life, in constant dread of the knock on the door from a policeman telling you they're permanently gone.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">We know what the drug is that can give these families back their loved ones. The police in Durham are planning to pay for heroin for addicts because they know it too. Whatever level of government you are elected to, please put this on the agenda, if you aren't elected to anything, find an agenda to put it on. Write letters. Save lives.</span></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;" />
<div dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: baseline;">Thank you.</span></div>
Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-32931205184743784382015-05-22T16:08:00.000+01:002015-05-22T16:08:18.876+01:00A long-term, 360 degree policy for well-being can see us rise above the mire.I was a candidate in the 2015 general election in a seat we had no chance of winning. An election address was put out in my name that contained messages I had at best moderate enthusiasm for. The "3 great reasons to vote for me" were things that sadly sapped some of the excitement out of voting for myself.<br />
<br />
I've never thought about the Liberal Democrats as a party that just shuffled money around from one place to another, but that was my message to the people. Raising the personal allowance for income tax was great when we were letting people earning a £10,000 salary take home much more money. Raising it further was only going to help those earning above £10,600. It had morphed in to a tax cut for the middle classes, rather than the poorest paid workers, and the Conservatives were promising the same thing anyway. When your tax policy is copied by the Conservatives you really should re-examine your priorities.<br />
<br />
The second "great reason to vote for Ewan Hoyle" was that I would help pass a law ensuring that the pensioners of the UK would become less and less affordable for society as their numbers grew. Old people vote more than the young, so fire-hosing them with money for all eternity is of course good politics. It is however completely unjustifiable at a time when the rest of the welfare budget is in drought. The pensions triple-lock was always populist bribery that left me cold.<br />
<br />
Reason three was another fire-hose policy, this time spraying money at the NHS in order to meet the need identified. This is one way of ensuring that the needs of patients are satisfactorily met. When Labour got into government in 1997 they had great ambitions to increase the level of spending on our health services. They were successful in matching those ambitions... but what would our society look like if they had instead attempted to reduce <i>demand </i>on our health service? You know, helped citizens become healthier and happier so they didn't need to go to their GP or go to hospital.<br />
<br />
This is what should be at the core of our next pitch to the Scottish people (we've got an election next year rUKers :) ). A bold, long-term ambition to reduce demand on government spending rather than vision-free, short-sighted promises to increase its supply. Rather than promise x-thousand extra nurses or police, how's about we reduce the workload for our existing nurses and police so they can do their jobs more effectively under less pressure.<br />
<br />
But this isn't a right-of-centre plea for the state to be rolled back, it's a plea for an enormous expansion of capital spending: Well-being capital spending that invests in education, outreach and community activities that engage effectively with those members of society who will (bluntly) cost us the most in the coming years.<br />
<br />
<b>For the unemployed</b>, the other parties seem intent on compelling people to either <a href="https://www.gmcvo.org.uk/workfare-plans-announced-conservatives" target="_blank">work for their benefits</a>, or to accept <a href="http://labourlist.org/2014/03/why-were-introducing-a-compulsory-jobs-guarantee/" target="_blank">compulsory employment</a>. These strategies are troubling to various degrees but both remove the ability of the individual concerned to make their own choices about their future. I attended a conference on measuring well-being a while back and the only useful take-home messages from a very dry day were that unemployment is awful for your well-being and that volunteering and getting outdoors are the best things for improving well-being and self-esteem.<br />
<br />
So instead of <a href="http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2015/04/10/concerns-raised-over-conservative-s-three-day-volunteering-pledge.aspx" target="_blank">offering volunteering opportunities to the entire nation's workforce</a>, would it not be a better idea to target volunteering at those who desperately need it (the unemployed and those on ESA) as a means of both increasing their well-being and self-esteem; and of introducing them to roles in the workforce that they might enjoy. Let those on benefits choose their own volunteering placements with no compulsion, and those with a bit of get up and go will be eager to identify a work role they are comfortable and able in. They will accumulate positive and recent references and will ascend to the workforce so much quicker. Those who choose not to take up the volunteering opportunities should receive no greater punishment than watching other people gain confidence and get jobs, and will always have that same path available should they wish to follow it.<br />
<br />
Unemployment is a soul-crushing experience, and at present the state with their hair-trigger sanction regime is harassing people on JSA to the point where they are frequently eligible (through stress-related mental and physical health conditions) for ESA instead... only to then be kicked off ESA for not being sufficiently demonstrably impaired. This shuffling of people from one benefit to another and none until they give up and stop claiming has to be stopped in favour of a regime that offers humane treatment, sympathy, opportunity, choice and hope of a path into a fulfilling life in work.<br />
<br />
If we are to present a long-term vision for health and well-being then we have to propose a <b>revolution in our schools, </b>creating a greatly expanded personal, social and health education programme which can effectively prevent and intervene in some of the great drivers of suffering that can set lives down dark and dangerous paths. There are a great many subjects that have broken through taboos to expose the harrowing experiences that constrain opportunity. We now live in a culture in which child abuse is being exposed, mental health and addiction experiences are being openly discussed in the media, and graphic, violent pornography is accessible to children.<br />
<br />
Schools education has never been effective at preparing young people for the challenges that life can present. We need to equip them with the tools to identify instances of abuse, addiction and mental ill health, and the information necessary to effectively act to limit their impact. Early intervention and prevention is absolutely key to limiting the impact of traumatic experiences. Delivering the right programmes at the right time (for pupils and their families) can arrest the passage of trauma horizontally through society and vertically through generations.<br />
<br />
There will be many more policies and programmes that could slot easily into a long-term ambition for well-being: An ambition that saves us spending money on the cleaning roles in government spending that tidy up the mess that society makes. As well as broadly <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/willie-rennie-plans-lib-dem-roadshow-1-3778386" target="_blank">asking the Scottish people what they want the Lib Dems to do for them</a>, could we not invite academics and charities to identify the policies and programmes that will help realise this long-term well-being vision?<br />
<br />
Politicians don't really do long-term visions any more. It's a short term game and it serves the population poorly as a result. As a left-of-centre party in a bloody crowded marketplace in Scotland, we have to rise above the short-term empty promises, and present something better that we can be proud of.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-58271251286880434932015-05-22T11:04:00.000+01:002015-05-22T11:04:12.102+01:00Marketing the Liberal Democrats should mean setting us free.A couple of weeks ago Daisy Benson shared a video on twitter of a Tim Farron speech from 2010. In it he described our opposing parties as "soulless marketing operations". Five years on from then, it is clear to me that the Liberal Democrats had tried in this election to <a href="https://twitter.com/ewanhoyle/status/598043829527252993" target="_blank">outdo the other parties</a> with our marketing operation, and fallen spectacularly flat on our faces.<br />
<br />
In July 2013 we had a visit in Glasgow from Ryan Coetzee, our party's director of strategy in which he unveiled the great slogan we would be marching under and parroting for the two years (TWO LONG YEARS!) to follow. Apparently the slogan "Stronger Economy, Fairer Society" had tested really well with our potential voters (or some other marketing guff-speak). "Well goody for it" I thought at the time. "But how will it make voters feel after two years of solid exposure?"<br />
<br />
As an interesting aside, Ryan presented us with a really strong metaphor for message consistency that day based upon his son's playroom activities. Apparently his son had lots of Star Wars lego and lots of Harry Potter lego, but he had warned him against allowing any of the Harry Potter lego to contaminate the construction of his great Death Star project, because we all know a Lego Death Star just won't work if it has yellow and brown bits of Harry Potter Lego in it. Everything has to be pulling in the right direction and in just the right place if the Lego Death Star is to fulfil its destiny and carry us to glorious victory (or something). I don't know if this metaphor was trotted out at other stops on the campaign roadshow, or if somebody had pointed out to him that he was likening our consistent message to the most potent monument to pure evil in the history of cinema, or an inconsequential children's toy that would quickly be either left in a corner or dismantled to resource the creative imagination of a child. I suspect considering Ryan as Lord Business and Liberal Democrat candidates as Master Builders (bagsy Benny the 80s spaceman - replace the word "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYk9q9UBnmg" target="_blank">spaceship</a>" with "drug policy campaign" and that's basically me ;) ) will make <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lego_movie/" target="_blank">The Lego Movie</a> even more enjoyable.<br />
<br />
Politics isn't a good field on which to impose slogans and other marketing gimmicks. For me, every time our representatives said the SEFS words they stopped being honest, plausible representatives and turned into robots churned out by a party machine. Ryan tested one presentation of SEFS. He didn't test the extent to which people listen to what you have to say if what you have to say consistently contains the same phrase. If a friend says the same thing every time you go down the pub with them, and that thing he says is obviously advancing the interests of him and his employer, you're going to stop inviting him to the pub. I know I want my politicians to be thoughtful and interesting, and I think our target voters (if there even is such a thing) would prize independent thought, carefully thought out solutions, and (say that dirty word) a sense of humour, before a politician's ability to slavishly adhere to a party message.<br />
<br />
Incidentally SEFS itself was fundamentally flawed. Basic inference from what it conceded led you to the statement that the Conservatives can deliver a strong economy and Labour could deliver a Fair Society. I believe neither of these statements to have been particularly demonstrated over the course of the campaign, or the behaviour of those parties in the last 18 years (since 1997).<br />
<br />
So how should we market ourselves?<br />
<br />
Well here's a radical thought, inspired by my studies of evolution from back in the day. We've just suffered an extinction event. Extinction events throughout the history of life have led to rapid bursts of evolution. But for evolution to have a chance of creating success it needs variety. Forget the slavish adherence to a consistent message. Let our activists talk with passion about the things that make them passionate. Help them to grow in confidence and in authority into the niches where we need them. The ideas that are unpopular will be evolutionary dead ends, but the good ideas, put forward by authoritative advocates who are passionate about those ideas, will bring back the voters, and continue to grow our membership as people realise we are a party that believes in freedom inside the party as well as for the people we seek to represent.<br />
<br />
We have many brilliant people within this party. Our new membership will contain many more. We need to find the confidence to grant them the freedom to shine in public. Take the great ideas we have to improve people's lives, help each other figure out how best to present them, and let us talk with passion about how we want to change our society for the better.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYk9q9UBnmg" target="_blank">...SPACESHIP!!</a>Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-48664579380473988152015-01-10T01:20:00.000+00:002015-01-10T01:20:30.933+00:00What if someone drew a nice Mohammed?<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
It strikes me that there is one simple action that can challenge people to move beyond some pretty dumb standpoints that they hold. Muslims need to relax about depictions of prophets. There is no need to fly off the handle about the depiction of prophets, either laid down by scripture, or as a means of dealing happily with the modern world.<br />Equally there is no need to deliberately provoke the ire of Muslims by disrespecting something they hold dear. Cartoons that depict Mohammed disrespectfully are deliberate acts of divisive button-pushing and should be condemned. They also fail to challenge the root of the prohibition of depiction of the prophet in Islamic culture. If Islam prohibits "anything that could become a source of idolatry" publishing a picture of a revered prophet mid sex act with something wacky isn't going to challenge that. What muslim is going to adopt that representation as an idol? That's not satire. It's not clever. That's being a dick.<br />What we need in order to move forward is a positive depiction of Mohammed reacting with despair to the actions of those who have considered it acceptable to murder people in his name.<br />Such a depiction would challenge both those who seek to offend in the name of free speech, and those who insist that any depiction of their prophet is offensive.<br />If you're going to deliberately offend people, at least focus your offence on those who would benefit from their views being challenged. And do it in such a way that more moderate members of their community have an opportunity to point at your work and say "They do have a point you know." Instead choosing to produce work that would likely offend all followers of a religious faith and a considerable number of people with other faiths or none... is just incredibly dumb.<br />On the other hand vigorously prohibiting depictions of prophets just creates a perception of Islam as a prickly, sensitive religion worshipping a god that can't overcome the competition of a few idols. If Islam and the western world are to more peacefully co-exist, this is a cultural norm Islam could well benefit from letting slide.<br />I'm really disappointed that no one has created such a positive depiction of a despairing Mohammed. I'd do it myself, but I can't draw... and I'm a wuss.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
I wrote this blog after reading this article:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7517221/charlie-hebdo-blasphemy" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7517221/charlie-hebdo-blasphemy</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The too long; didn't read excerpt of the above article is below:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
"According to Aslan, the Koran does not explicitly prohibit depicting the Prophet Mohammed, and there have been images of Mohammed, his family, and other prophets throughout history. "The history of Islam teems with images of the Prophet Mohammed. You see this in the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Still, the idea that depictions of Mohammed are disallowed didn't come out of nowhere. Islam, Aslan explained, like Judaism, is an iconoclastic religion that does not permit God to be anthropomorphized — that is, portrayed as a human being — and prizes textual scripture instead.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Over time, Islamic scholars extended that tradition to cover Mohammed and the other major prophets as well, and discouraged artists from depicting them in images. That has created a strong cultural norm against images of Mohammed, even in the absence of a religious law against them.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-top: 6px;">
According to Mogahed, there is now a "commonly understood" rule against depicting the prophet, which is seen as part of Islam's prohibition of anything that could become a source of idolatry. The worry, she explained, was that statues or images of the prophet could be used as idols — that people might call upon them to intercede with god, which would be against religious law."</div>
Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-9972816142692113752014-05-16T12:50:00.001+01:002014-05-17T01:10:23.344+01:00On achieving decriminalisation of sex work: Framing the debate.I'm not an expert on sex work. Nor am I an experienced campaigner for reform of the laws regarding sex work. I have however considered at great length the political presentation of arguments for drug policy reform (with a decent record of success) and I've found myself recently turning my attention to the political situation in the UK regarding sex work.<br />
<br />
While the drug policy debate seems to be heading irreversibly towards decriminalisation and regulation, the sex work debate is a car crash in comparison. The notion that criminalising sex work clients will make everything all better is spreading like wildfire across Europe, with rational politicians and academics struggling to resist the impassioned fervour of women claiming that criminalising clients will end demand and somehow stop sex trafficking.<br />
<br />
The situation for sex workers in Sweden and Norway instead appears to be relatively <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/01/03/the-nordic-model-of-prostitution-law-is-a-myth/" target="_blank">bleak</a>, with the superficially attractive arguments for the criminalisation of clients unfortunately leading to what appear to be largely negative outcomes for sex workers and their clients.<br />
<br />
Once upon a time I too found the Demand Change arguments attractive. Like all normal human beings I found the notion of sex trafficking as presented in factual and fictional media to be viscerally repugnant, and Demand Change are able to exploit that revulsion in order to win support for their political aims.<br />
<br />
There was something that troubled me though. How could reducing demand for a service be of benefit to the willing providers of that service? It didn't make sense, so I tried talking to Demand Change about reducing the 'supply' of sex workers by addressing the drug addiction that motivates those 'survival sex workers' engaged in the most marginal aspects of the industry. They weren't interested. I then started investigating whether 'changing demand' had been in any way successful, and found that it hadn't.<br />
<br />
In investigating the alternative decriminalisation of sex work I found it to be supported by both evidence and logic. If you allow sex workers to work together and organise themselves in the way they see fit, then they can protect their safety so much better. If the worker and client are committing no crime, the relationship they have with the police is going to be so much more conducive to detecting and punishing abuses (including trafficking).<br />
<br />
So why if decriminalisation is such a superior model, is it not this model which is spreading across the European continent?<br />
<br />
I have my suspicions that it is the emotional argument that is being lost. While the advocates of the criminalisation of clients have tapped into people's visceral reaction to sex trafficking, decriminalisation advocates seem reluctant to conflate the majority of sex work with rare instances of trafficking or coercion or 'survival sex work' motivated by addiction.<br />
<br />
If the more likely policy solution to sex trafficking (and coercion in sex work in general) is to be found in decriminalisation then surely decriminalisation advocates should be able to take the opposition on on their own turf and win the argument. Transparency and co-operation are the enemies of secret exploitation and both can be better achieved through decriminalisation.<br />
<br />
My recent imperfect attempts at amending Scottish Liberal Democrat policy were not embraced by charities representing sex workers because they were unhappy at the conflation of sex work with violence against women, trafficking and drug abuse. I am happy to accept that trafficking, coercion and survival sex work motivated by drug addiction are relatively rare in the broad range of sex worker experiences, but I'd hope that sex worker representatives could recognise the potential in them taking a firm, determined stance to eradicate these aspects of sex work. Taking such a stance while promoting decriminalisation as a means to improve conditions for all sex workers, might rather serve to highlight to the public that there is a very important distinction to be made between sex work conditions that should be either acceptable or unacceptable to society.<br />
<br />
I fear that decriminalisation advocates will not get very far if they choose to shy away from discussion of trafficking, coercion and survival sex work. They will get a far more positive reaction from the public and politicians if they address the issue saying "these aspects of sex work are intolerable and we want to work with you to eradicate them". I think that only with that firm foundation of solidarity, will calls for decriminalisation be seriously entertained. One of the greatest strengths of the decriminalisation arguments is the likelihood of police, clients and workers working together to identify and combat instances of trafficking and abuse. Sympathy for the non-coerced sex worker majority is not a rich seam in society ready to be mined. If change is to come, decriminalisation advocates have to share and utilise the abundant sympathy for trafficked and coerced women. Calls for decriminalisation in order to benefit this minority will also bring enormous benefits to the majority, and focusing on the suffering of this minority and survival sex workers would hopefully reduce their incidence. As they become less of a pressing issue, the sex worker majority will benefit from a transformation in the way the public sees sex work, and the public will likely be grateful to decriminalisation advocates for their role in reducing the suffering of the minority.<br />
<br />
It appears from where I stand that both sides are guilty of conflation. Advocates of the Nordic model see all sex work as violence against women. Decriminalisation advocates, by asking mention of trafficking and drug abuse to be excluded from the debate, risk people thinking they think that all sex work is just fine.<br />
<br />
Decriminalisation advocates can win if they turn up to play on the same pitch as the Nordic advocates, laying out a clear distinction between tolerable and intolerable sex work conditions, and working with public opinion in order to improve policy for the benefit of all sex workers. Change is more likely to be achieved if we first address the needs of those enduring the greatest suffering.<br />
<br />
I share these thoughts in a genuine attempt to be helpful, in specific reference to Scottish Lib Dem policy development, and without a full knowledge of how decriminalisation advocates have been operating up until now in different contexts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-71008479934111885962013-08-01T15:22:00.000+01:002013-08-06T12:14:42.635+01:00How can government fight everyday sexism?<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thanks to the work of some admirable women, many of us are becoming increasingly aware of the extent to which women are harassed, groped, and intimidated in their everyday lives. Social networks and blogs are becoming spaces where people can share disturbing experiences, find solidarity, and open the eyes of men to just how odious other men can be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My eyes have been opened, and having been disgusted by what I've been seeing, I did what I do these days when I find an aspect of our culture or society that needs changing. I reached for my laptop to start writing a policy motion*, trying to think of the things that government could do to spare people harassment and trauma.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I included three things I thought government could do to change our culture:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) Improve relationship and sex education.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) Develop rape prevention classes and advertising campaigns.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Develop public information campaigns to promote appropriate responses to sexual assault or harassment in victims and witnesses.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) <u>Improve relationship and sex education</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When David Cameron delivered his <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/07/22/david-cameron-s-porn-speech-in-full" target="_blank">speech on internet pornography</a> last month he described many ways that children could theoretically be prevented from accessing pornography, but completely ignored the thrust of the major report "<a href="http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_667" target="_blank">Basically... porn is everywhere.</a>" produced in May of this year. In the accompanying <a href="http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/press_release/content_505" target="_blank">press release</a> <span style="color: #333333; line-height: 1.3em;">Dr Miranda Horvath, Senior Lecturer, Middlesex University said:</span></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-top: 0.6em;">
<strong><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>"It is clear that children and young people want and need safe spaces in which they can ask questions about, and discuss their experiences with pornography. The onus must be on adults to provide them with evidence based education and support and help them to develop healthy, not harmful relationships with one another."</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-top: 0.6em;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'm not surprised our Conservative Prime Minister has baulked at the idea of adults talking to children about pornography, but I am disappointed. It seems likely that preparing children for what they might encounter in pornography and helping them develop healthy attitudes towards relationships, sex, and gender roles through education is going to be far more effective in changing our culture than placing all the internet porn in a cookie jar and putting it on a high shelf.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-top: 0.6em;">
<u><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) <span style="background-color: transparent;">Develop rape prevention classes and advertising campaigns.</span></span></u></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0.6em; margin-top: 0.6em;">
<span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This part of the proposal doesn't need much explanation beyond a recommendation that you read <a href="http://www.sparksummit.com/2013/04/10/research-blog-teaching-men-rape-prevention-actually-works/" target="_blank">this excellent blog post</a> by Christin Bowman. On the issue of advertising, Police Scotland already have a campaign <a href="http://www.wecanstopit.co.uk/default.aspx" target="_blank">"We can stop it"</a>, though to me it stops well short of communicating the same level of derision and stigma as the Canadian <a href="http://www.theviolencestopshere.ca/dbtg.php" target="_blank">"Don't be that guy"</a> campaign. On rape prevention classes, if they work - and they certainly appear to - then we should use them. We need to ask ourselves when we should use them though. Do we deploy them in the later school years, in colleges and universities, or even in work places with high numbers of young people? Could we even develop targeted delivery for those identified expressing sexist attitudes or harassment. If we could identify transgressors who stop short of a criminal offence, could we perhaps compel them to attend a Commission for the Dissuasion of Everyday Sexism (with an acronym that could be pronounced as the suitably stigmatising "seedies")? </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) <u>Develop public information campaigns to promote appropriate responses to sexual assault or harassment in victims and witnesses.</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><br /></u>And so to the final proposal, and I think the one that - if it works - has the greatest potential to transform our culture and people's safety from assault in public places. This idea stemmed from something that I was picking up from many of the blogs and articles that I was reading on the subject. It makes me very uncomfortable to know that a very common response to being harassed or assaulted in a public place is to freeze, to try to ignore the assault and to hope it stops. It's quite sickening to think that I might have been in the presence of a sexual assault and not have known, that I could have prevented distress and trauma if I had been more aware or had heard or seen a sign. The freezing response might be due to a reluctance to make a fuss, or a lack of confidence in society to come to their aid. Regardless of the reason we have to consider how we might change attitudes and behaviours in both victims and bystanders so that we can create a genuinely hostile environment for the perpetrators of sexual harassment and assault.<br />I think a public information campaign could be developed, like this one in which <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR0aZX1_TD8" target="_blank">Vinnie Jones intervenes to save a life</a>. But for this campaign you'd have clear instructions on what to do in case of assault or harassment for the victim, the witnesses, and the perpetrator.<br />For the victim, there might be key words or gestures that could be used to indicate that they were uncomfortable to witnesses. Words for quieter public places, and gestures for noisy environments like pubs or clubs, or whichever is easiest at the time. Perhaps a clear warning could be issued before deploying these words or gestures when the victim is unsure of whether to escalate.<br />Witnesses, on hearing or seeing these words or gestures, should feel obliged to intervene, firstly with an audible or physical gesture warning, then perhaps by deploying technology to make a record of the perpetrator's identity and behaviour (over 50% of adults have smartphones now), before passing them to the police. And by witnesses, I mean all witnesses should engage in this behaviour if they can. If witnesses have been exposed to the public information campaign their perception of their behaviour would hopefully convert from having to be brave/stupid to intervene, to having to be cowardly or to neglect their duty to not intervene.<br />Perpetrators will be given the simple message that they can walk away at any point and any delay in walking away, any attempt to return to that behaviour or follow their victim, or any violence against the victim or witnesses will rapidly escalate the actions that might be taken against them.<br />I'm not pretending that this is the answer. I'm sure there will be many ethical, psychological and practical questions to consider concerning this approach, but I think we have got to a point where people are more aware something needs to be done to help people enjoy themselves without fear of assault, and the technology appears to be ready to support such an environment.<br />The ubiquity of smartphones provides society with a potentially excellent tool in the fight against sexual harassment and criminality generally. We can't be far off having the necessary technology to be able to beam live feeds and geographical locations from smart-phones into police control rooms.<br />The greater question perhaps is whether society is ready to step up. Are we ready to be inspired into rescuing our fellow citizens from distressing experiences? Or are we cowards who would resent feeling obliged to interfere with a lecherous asshole's enjoyment of his evening?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'm hopeful for the former.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">*The motion I describe was submitted to Scottish Liberal Democrat conference as part of a larger motion that also covered reform of laws regarding sex work and sex workers. It was not selected for debate, but I intend to separate the motion in two motions and resubmit them in the future. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br />I'd welcome any comments on these measures in order to guide what eventually makes it into the motion for next time.</span>Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-16091238693742702562013-07-13T15:35:00.000+01:002013-07-13T15:35:22.047+01:00When prohibitionists lie, we have to call bullshit<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">My latest letter to The Herald, this time taking a former chief constable over my knee:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">I'd like to praise The Herald for shedding further light on the deadly effects of fake ecstasy pills (headline of 13th July 2013), but I'd also like to raise concerns about some of the counter arguments to the 'regulation of a legal market' proposals I outlined in <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/replace-drugs-prohibition-with-a-legal-well-regulated-market.21550646" target="_blank">my letter of July 8th</a>, both in Christopher Gilfedder's <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/we-must-ensure-that-so-called-recreational-drugs-remain-illegal.21568831?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">letter of July 10th</a>, and in Dr Ian Oliver's appearance on BBC's <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b036yswk/Newsnight_Scotland_11_07_2013/" target="_blank">Newsnight Scotland programme on July 11th</a>. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Both offenders peddle the ridiculous notion that the illegal drug industry would in some way be successful in fighting back against a legal, regulated market. They forget that the risk premium on drug supply is absolutely enormous, escalating exponentially the cost of drugs as they progress from grower or manufacturer, through distributors and local gangsters to the drug user. Without that risk premium, the government-regulated market coul</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">d sell cannabis or MDMA at similar prices to herbs or aspirin if they wished to. Instead the government would tax the products, filling as much of the gap between the small manufacturing costs and current illegal market prices as they thought suitable. They would have to pile on an awful lot of tax to cause customers to disregard the guarantees of quality, dose predictability, personal safety and ethical considerations and give their money to criminals.<br />That tax would be wisely invested in the education and treatment services that would help both prevent and treat the problematic drug use that blights Scotland more than any other western European nation.<br />To see what such policies can bring about we need look no further than Portugal. Though they have not legalised and regulated the drug market, decriminalisation has allowed them to divert resources from policing to health and education interventions. Rather than the massive increases in drug use and significant increases in drug deaths that Ian Oliver asserts, the latest statistics indicate that past month use of cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy and heroin in Portugal <a href="http://twitpic.com/cveyiu" target="_blank">have at least halved</a> between 2001 - when their reforms were introduced - and 2012. (I can send the full document to you or recommend you speak to Alex Stevens of the Uni of Kent to verify this). Portugal's Special Registry of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine estimate that there were <a href="http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt#drd" target="_blank">19 drug-related death cases in 2011. In 2008 that estimated number was 94</a>. There were 584 drug-related deaths in Scotland in 2011 for a population half the size of Portugal's. From where I'm sitting it looks like we have a lot of catching up to do, and it greatly saddens me that a former chief constable would commit heinous crimes against statistics in an attempt to hinder that progress.</span>Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-83308599097268557202013-05-02T12:52:00.000+01:002013-05-02T13:16:04.199+01:00The speech I couldn't finishIt's been seven weeks now since I broke down about a third of the way through my speech in the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference mental health debate. It was a debate characterised by quite astounding bravery from almost all of those who got up to speak. Each brave speaker independently chose to disregard the stigma surrounding the issue and relate their own experiences of mental ill health in the hope that those present could learn from those experiences and help to bring change. I am especially grateful to Christine Jardine for abandoning her prepared speech in order to deliver the rest of my own. It was an extremely kind and compassionate gesture that reflected the remarkably supportive and familial atmosphere in the hall.<br />
<br />
I have been holding the emotions behind this speech inside me for about 15 years now, so it's perhaps unsurprising that I couldn't get to the end. Even siphoning off that emotion to drive my drug policy work for the last 5 years clearly wasn't sufficient to prepare me for confronting the one thing more than any other that drives me in my political activity.<br />
<br />
I hope in publishing my speech in blog form it can reach a wider audience, and maybe cause some people to think about how we can make things better.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">"Good afternoon conference. This
is very much the second draft of my speech. The first one was
basically me taking the opportunity to confront my brother's mental
illness and how I feel about it. There was no way I could have
delivered that speech. A good friend described it as very touching
and very raw, so if you're into that kind of thing I'll probably put
it up as a blog early next week*.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I
have a brother with schizophrenia. It has been a hugely traumatic
thing for my family to deal with over the last 17 years, and I sadly
don't see anything in this motion that might have spared us that
trauma. This is a fairly solid, well-meaning mental health motion and
I'm sorry I couldn't have engaged earlier in an attempt to improve
it. </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">But
I'm here now, so I have to take this opportunity to encourage the
party to additionally focus its efforts on the key issues of
prevention and early intervention.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Schizophrenia
is a condition that can render young people a traumatising burden for
the rest of their lives. It usually first appears in someone's late
teens or early twenties, and it affects approximately 1% of the
population. Why, why are we not preparing school children for the
distinct possibility themselves, a family member, or friend, might
start to lose their grip on rationality and reality. Why are we
leaving families open to this devastating impact, that sets off a
chain reaction of pain, anguish and mental ill health that ricochets
wildly through our society.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I've
said this to a UK government health minister's face and I'll say it
again to you today. I would have given all my As for the knowledge to
identify the warning signs of my brother's impending deterioration.
The knowledge that could allow me to do the right thing in good time
to allow him to cling on to reality and eventually return to a chance
at happiness and fulfilment. Why do we spend hours teaching the
fictional breakdown of Hamlet or the poems of Philip Larkin, when we
could be teaching our children how to safeguard their real life
mental health and how to look out for - and respond appropriately to
- the deterioration of their friends and family.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">My
brothers chances of happiness and fulfilment are all but gone now.
This motion is ok, but I humbly ask for your help in preparing the
motion or motions necessary for future conferences, that will
facilitate genuine early and effective intervention in mental health
conditions. </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">There
are a massive number of families like mine who are suffering in
silence due to schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder,
alcoholism, drug abuse or myriad other mental health problems. It is
a great pity that we struggle to gather the emotional strength or
courage to stamp our feet and shout from the rooftops. But we are out
there and we are legion. But because we don't speak up, we are not
spoken to. Politicians instead concentrate their messages on jobs and
growth. But what is a job without a happy home life. I'd dearly love
this party to plant it's flag firmly on this ground. We should be the
party that aspires for a society in which it is easier to find
happiness, and easier to avoid sadness and trauma. </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Voting for this motion is a good start,
but we can do so much more."</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Having just read this again for the first time in a long while, I'm surprised at how short it is. It doesn't have to be long though. It's a simple request for changes that will be very easy to deliver politically. All it needs is for politicians to do some upper lip loosening exercises and to consider the enormous benefits that better mental health and a more emotionally resilient population could deliver for our society. </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
*I'm happy to e-mail copies of the first draft of the speech to anyone who's interested. I'm not comfortable with it being distributed more widely though, so please don't pass it on.</div>
Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-46579949965314564662013-04-18T12:38:00.000+01:002013-04-18T12:38:20.675+01:00The proposal of drug consumption rooms is a backward step.I've just finished listening to a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rwc9y?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">phone-in</a> discussing the issue of drug consumption rooms on BBC Radio 5 live. It was all a bit depressing, and only partially for the fact that every second caller was hysterically describing the concept as an outrage. What is really depressing is that we've already moved beyond drug consumption rooms in the UK.<br />
<br />
We already have three centres where heroin is being provided for addicts in secure, medically supervised environments. Discussing drug consumption rooms instead moves the debate back a step from the cutting edge of good practice.<br />
<br />
My disappointment stems from the comparative ease of selling each concept politically. It is bizarre to allow addicts to first beg, steal or borrow to raise money to purchase poor quality street heroin, only to allow them to consume whatever it is they have purchased in a clean, clinical environment. The drug itself should be extremely cheap for the state to provide. The major costs of these clinics instead stem from staffing and building costs. Drug consumption rooms require all the costs of staffing and premises, but provide none of the savings of reducing acquisitive crime and undermining the criminal market. The benefits are clear for the addict, but less clear for the community.<br />
<br />
Clinics providing clean heroin to addicts should be a much easier sell as they can be easily marketed to locals as assisting both the addicts and the community more effectively, and for only marginally higher cost.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-71239341981243208492013-02-27T12:46:00.000+00:002013-02-28T13:14:34.050+00:00Fisking Kathy Gyngell<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It's always exciting when
I find another link on twitter or facebook to a </span><a href="http://www.cps.org.uk/blog/q/date/2013/02/25/first-the-great-portuguese-drug-decriminalisation-fallacy-was-fostered-now-a-british-liberalisation-myth-has-been-strapped-on-the-back-of-it-by-a-ruthless-and-conscienceless-pro-drugs-lobby" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Kathy Gyngell blogpost</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> on the drug policy debate. I read about drugs policy and
come to certain conclusions. Kathy reads the same things and comes to
completely different conclusions. I've been wanting to pick all the
little non-fact nits out of one of her articles for a while now and I
think it's about time I stepped up to the plate. After all, Kathy -
having been the major agitator behind The Conservative's drug policy
for the last few years – is basically my conservative equivalent.
Step aside folks. This battle is mine (though of course if you do
feel the need to step in to advise me then your facts and ideas are
welcome).</span><br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">For her latest article
Kathy has also rather stumbled on to my territory by having a go at
the <a href="http://transform-drugs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/new-ipsos-mori-poll-shows-53-of-gb.html" target="_blank">Transform/Ipsos MORI drug policy poll</a> reported in the media last
week. I commissioned a <a href="http://bit.ly/LDDPRpoll" target="_blank">drug policy poll</a> myself in 2010 with the help of Liberal Democrat colleagues, so
it's a subject I follow with some interest.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It's a long article, and
she has form, so this might take a while to isolate all the little
untruths and distortions, but I feel it has to be done.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">[I did have a go at the first paragraph, but it has been criticised very ably already (and better than I achieved) by John Robertson at <a href="http://www.thepoisongarden.co.uk/blog2/blog260213.php" target="_blank">"The Poison Garden"</a> He used 1,000 words on the first paragraph alone so I shall pick up the baton at...]</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Paragraph
2:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;">Gyngell: “<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Previously
commissioned YouGov drug polls (for the Observer) suggest attitudes
towards drug use have hardened, not softened”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">An
interesting assertion, though no link provided so that we can check
it our for ourselves.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell:
“The recent Sun YouGov poll hardly found a ringing endorsement for
Nick Clegg’s call for a drug policy review either - 50% of his own
party members (known for their often off-the-wall views) disagreed
and the vast majority of Conservative and Labour members gave it the
thumbs down.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">This
is where it really gets good/weird. There was a recent <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/12/14/60-back-royal-commission-drugs/" target="_blank">Sun YouGov poll</a> and here's a quote from the YouGov website: “</span><span style="color: #333333;">There
is majority support for a royal commission across party lines, with
59% of Conservative voters, 62% of Labour supporters and 75% of Lib
Dems in favour.</span><span style="color: black;">” The <a href="http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/qq214l0ijx/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-121212-drugs.pdf" target="_blank">full results</a> also show a majority in favour of trials of Portuguese-style
decriminalisation (a result not replicated by the Ipsos MORI poll
using different methodology). And on page 1 there is a trend since
June of more people favouring legalisation or decriminalisation of
“soft drugs such as cannabis”, such that more people favoured
reform than the status quo. Is there another recent Sun YouGov poll that doesn't so utterly destroy Kathy's argument?</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Clegg
called for a Royal Commission before Christmas, so I assume that's
what Kathy refers to when she says “review”. If anyone can point
to a poll of party “members” I'd be intrigued to read it, but if
50% of Liberal Democrat members disagree with the call for a review,
they must have been outside the walls of the conference hall when my
<a href="http://bit.ly/LibDrugs" target="_blank">2011 drug policy motion</a> calling for government to set up an immediate
review was passed. It passed “with only one or two votes against”
and there were many more than 4 people in the hall.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Paragraph
3:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell
describes Transform's mission as “To persuade understandably wary
politicians to throw caution to the winds on drugs” </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This
is of course entirely unfair to Transform, as their efforts recently
have mainly been directed at achieving a wide-ranging,
government-initiated independent review of all options for reform
(including stricter prohibition). They do this presumably because
they think their position in advocating a regulated legal market for
drugs is in fact the most cautious means of dealing with drug use in
respect to reducing the harms to individuals both from drugs and from
criminal sanctions. If Gyngell is as confident in her solutions to the drug problem, then she should surely support their examination alongside the alternatives proposed by Transform. She doesn't.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Later
on:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell:
“Ipsos Mori, the pollster, it seems took Transform’s biased
portrayal of UK drug policy as contrasted with ‘decriminalised
regimes’ at face value.”</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">And
here is that “biased portrayal”:</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">POSSESSION
OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IS CURRENTLY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THE UK. SOME
OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE ‘DECRIMINALISED’ POSSESSION OF SMALL
QUANTITIES OF ILLEGAL DRUGS FOR PERSONAL USE. </span></span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">THIS
MEANS THAT POSSESSION OF A SMALL QUANTITY FOR PERSONAL USE IS USUALLY
PUNISHED WITH FINES (LIKE A SPEEDING FINE), ATTENDANCE AT A DRUG
TREATMENT OR EDUCATION PROGRAMME, RATHER THAN ARREST. </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">UNDER
'DECRIMINALISATION', DRUGS ARE STILL CONFISCATED. PRODUCTION AND
SUPPLY TO OTHERS REMAIN CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT MAY RESULT IN
PUNISHMENTS CARRYING A CRIMINAL RECORD, </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">FOR
EXAMPLE A PRISON SENTENCE, FINES OR COMMUNITY SERVICE. WITH THIS IN
MIND, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COMES CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW IN
THE UK? </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Is
this not a fairly rigorous description of the reality in Portugal,
the decriminalisation model which I certainly favour, and which would
likely be the route that Britain would follow it politicians gathered
the courage?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell:
“And like the rest of the media, it swallowed Transform’s
fallacious presentation of the impact of decriminalisation in
Portugal.“</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Ok,
I'm not sure you could call Ipsos MORI part of the media for
starters, but here's what was presented:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">SINCE
THIS WAS INTRODUCED IN PORTUGAL IN 2001, AND RESOURCES WERE INSTEAD
SPENT ON HEALTHCARE, OVERALL USE OF DRUGS ROSE AT A SIMILAR RATE TO
NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES. </span></span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">HOWEVER,
THERE WERE HIGHER NUMBERS ACCESSING DRUG TREATMENT, THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM SPENT LESS TIME AND RESOURCES ON DRUG-RELATED CRIME, AND THERE
WERE FALLS IN PROBLEMATIC DRUG USE, </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">AND
DRUG USE AMONGST SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN ALSO FELL. WITH THIS IN MIND,
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COMES CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW IN THE
UK? </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The
results of Portuguese decriminalisation have been disputed, but the
best way to resolve this dispute is to turn to someone who has
addressed it and published peer-reviewed journal articles on the
subject. If interested, please read Professor Alex Stevens
(introduction <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/12/10/portuguese-drug-policy-alex-stevens/" target="_blank">here</a>) The only potentially biased aspect of this description is therefore
the reporting of a fall in use among school-age children, which from
Hughes and Stevens' work appears to be a trend also seen in Italy and
other EU countries (see <a href="http://kar.kent.ac.uk/29910/1/Hughes%20%20Stevens%202010.pdf" target="_blank">British Journal of Criminology article</a>).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What
Gyngell fails to mention is that the polled group was split. Half of
those polled saw the description of what decriminalisation meant.
Half additionally saw the description of what happened in Portugal.
So the presentation of the facts on Portugal was not an attempt to
skew the poll, but an exploration of what presentation of those facts
- or their absence – would mean for public opinion.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Gyngell:
“</span><span style="color: black;">This
was what they gave their naïve subjects to consider before the
second set of questions they were asked about their preference for a
drug policy review.” </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I
shall repeat, half of the group saw just the decriminalisation
description, and half additionally saw the largely accurate (though
perhaps slightly biased) reporting of what occurred in Portugal.
These separate groups were reported separately for the subsequent
polling questions (though their answers were pooled for the press
release).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell:
“The first page of the actual poll read quite something else
than the press release. Despite the encouragingly negative portrayal
of British policy that prefaced the first question, it found:</span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.13cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">60
per cent support for our drug laws as they are</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.13cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">60
per cent support for possession of illegal drugs remaining a
criminal offence.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.13cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">68%
of Conservative supporters, 56% of Labour supporters and 61% of
Liberal supporters – all clear majorities – backing this status
quo</span></span></div>
</li>
<li><div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.13cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">And
finally 74% of Asian and 77% of Blacks backing all the above (a
headline of its own surely?).</span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Far
from heralding a dramatic liberalisation of attitude, the poll showed
only 14% of the population favouring the decriminalisation of
possession, only 21% prepared to back a limited
decriminalisation </span></span><strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">trial </span></span></span></span></strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">in
a specified area.”</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-size: small;">I
fail to see how “</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL
DRUGS IS CURRENTLY A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THE UK</span>.” is an
encouragingly negative portrayal of British policy. Gyngell also
fails to mention that the first page of the poll data was from the
group not exposed to the information/propaganda on what had happened
in Portugal. So after railing against the exposure of poll
participants to this bias, she presents the numbers from those who
were not exposed to this bias. Sneaky.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I'm
not sure why she feels she has to use the 60% figure twice. She's
reporting the same answer to the same question. And on what
race-obsessed planet would the opinions of 37 Asian and 12 black
people make a worthwhile headline? There was no significant
difference between these groups and the rest. The numbers of black
people in the survey were so small they didn't even test for
significance. And why not report the fact that only 36% of mixed
ethnicity participants backed the status quo? Is it because that
didn't fit into her narrative, or because that was only 3 people out
of 7? And by "all of the above", she is still referring to one answer
to one polling question.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell:
“Could my reading be correct? I checked with an academic colleague.
His reply restored my faith in my sanity as well as my eyesight:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The
results are as you have interpreted them not as have been presented
by Transform, </span></span></span><em><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">the
majority remain in favour of legal barriers (to drugs possession)</span></span></span></span></em><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">”,
he said.”</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It's
fun to consider this exchange as that between a crazy person and an
unfortunate passing colleague desperate not to feed the loony troll,
but the chances are he was presented with incomplete information in
much the same way as the readers of her blog. The poll question asked
by Ipsos MORI on cannabis regulation, decriminalisation, or
prohibition was accurately reported by Transform. They did include
the results on decriminalisation of general drug possession in their
press release under the heading "Additional survey findings include...", and they let people look at the full results of the
poll for themselves on their website. I'd say this was good practice. Much better than writing an epic blog whinge with no links to evidence
provided whatsoever. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell:
“So how come then did two thirds of those polled, decide, against
their prior answers, that a review of the drug law was in order, how
did roughly half back the idea of either legalising or
decriminalising cannabis?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">They
were doped - metaphorically speaking – duped by the great
Portuguese drug fallacy”</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Were
they though Kathy? Half of them weren't exposed to the factual
information on what has happened in Portugal, and what did that half
have to say? </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Support
for a review (those without info on Portugal) 64%</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Support
for a review (those with info on Portugal) 70%</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So
even among those not doped up on propaganda, 64% support a full
independent review of all drug policy options.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Support
for cannabis legalisation or decriminalisation (not exposed) 51%</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Support
for cannabis legalisation or decriminalisation (exposed) 54%</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So
only a maximum of 6% of the sample were corrupted by what were facts
presented in good faith.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell
then launches into an effort to disprove the information provided
about successes in Portugal. And in some of this writing she is
occasionally correct. If Baroness Meacher is claiming in the media
that less people are taking drugs in Portugal than before then she
probably shouldn't be.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Then
something remarkable happens. Gyngell introduces a source of
information which is new to me and which might actually disprove the
one shaky assertion in the Portugal information in the poll.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">School
age use data, however, which has been monitored recently shows a
steady rise in Portugal since 1999 (by contrast with a 30% downward
trend in school age use since 1999 here) rising rapidly in the last 5
years from 10 -16%. My source was the well reputed and reliable,
comparative ESPAD monitoring studies. All this I explained.”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It's
a shame she has to tarnish this good work by using the word steady in
describing the rise in drug use among school-age children that happened in Portugal. In fact
both use of cannabis and of other illicit drugs fell in the data from
2003 to 2007. Generate these graphs for Portugal using <a href="http://www.espad.org/keyresult-generator" target="_blank">this website</a> and you see clearly very wavy lines rather than the straight ones
Gyngell implies with the word "steady". This pattern of lifetime use in teenagers is
entirely consistent with investment in prevention and treatment
alongside decriminalisation decreasing teenage experimentation, and
subsequent removal of this investment due to economic circumstances
leading to experimentation rising again. It's also a shame that she
says that there has been a rise from 10-16% in the past five years.
In 2011 cannabis use was at 16% (pats Kathy on head), but the only
other data points since 1999 were 2003 (15%), and 2007 (13%). I'm
going to be generous and suggest Kathy Gyngell can't read graphs.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gyngell
then gets nasty</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;">“<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Baroness
Meacher is by no means the first to have been taken in by pro drugs
advocates. Their campaign of disinformation has intensified since
they lost the cannabis classification debate in the UK – the focus
of their creeping effort to normalise cannabis use - from which
neither of the main parties is likely to retract now the serious
risks of cannabis use (especially by adolescents) for mental health
are known.”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The
pro-drugs line is a simple smear. I'm no more pro-drugs than Gyngell
is. I want the harms that drugs cause to society to be lessened. I
think that goal can be achieved by regulating them. I wouldn't
suggest anyone take any drug if they want a better life, unless of
course that drug has been recommended to them by a doctor. Organisations like Transform and Release</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> are harm reduction organisations, not pro-drug
organisations.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">The
serious risks to mental health are also paramount in my consideration
of cannabis regulations. This is how I explain why in the upcoming
issue of AdLib magazine: “</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Those who worry about the message sent about drugs should be able to recognise that the government message on drugs can be far better delivered by a government-approved vendor than a distant government's messy classification system. As a response to important concerns about psychosis and cannabis, the person selling legal cannabis can be trained and compelled to instruct users on the early warning signs of the illness. Far from endangering young minds, cannabis regulation should be seen as the missing piece of our otherwise excellent mental health policy.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #222222;">” The
risks of psychosis are a reason to regulate, not the other way round.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Gyngell:
“When the Home Affairs Select Committee, under Chairman Keith Vaz,
decided it was time for another drugs policy inquiry, it tuned its
terms of reference to theirs [the Global Commission on Drug Policy]
and went on to give its prime platform to its main advocate, the self
confessed dope smoking Virgin Boss, and Commission backer, Richard
Branson.</span><span style="color: #222222;">”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #222222;">This
revelation hardly discredits the Committee's report any more than the
fact that Kathy Gyngell herself later appeared before the committee
to give evidence.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #222222;">Gyngell:
“...</span><span style="color: black;">no one, least of all those best
informed, seriously maintains that either decriminalisation or the
longer term goal of legalisation would reduce drug use. (Reuter &
McCoun 1999). They all agree it would increase it (possibly from the
minority habit it is today to a majority habit like drinking and
smoking).</span><span style="color: #222222;">”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Perhaps
Kathy might like to have a read at the Release document <a href="http://www.release.org.uk/publications/drug-decriminalisation-policies-in-practice-across-the-globe" target="_blank">“</a></span><span style="color: #222222;"><a href="http://www.release.org.uk/publications/drug-decriminalisation-policies-in-practice-across-the-globe" target="_blank">A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalisation Policies in Practice Across the Globe”</a> The authors, following a considerable amount of research, certainly
wouldn't agree that decriminalisation would increase drug use. “</span><span style="color: black;">The
main aim of the report was to look at the existing research to
establish whether the adoption of a decriminalised policy led to
significant increases in drug use - the simple answer is that it
did not.</span><span style="color: #222222;">”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0.26cm; padding: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #222222;">I'm
sure others will be able to find omissions, mistakes, and slurs in
Gyngell's writing that I have not. It's important that they don't go
unrecorded. Gyngell after all appears regularly in the media to
provide "balance" in the drug policy debate. I'm not sure how
active she remains in Conservative circles regarding drug policy, but
if there are any Conservative members reading this, it might be best
to ask yourself, and more senior party members, whether her opinions
are worth any more of the party's attention.</span></span></span></div>
Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-54375042602238284652012-12-23T14:55:00.001+00:002012-12-23T14:55:08.712+00:00A legal high for your loved one at Christmas?We live in a curious world. I was out doing my Christmas shopping yesterday and came across a legal high stall right in the middle of Glasgow's Buchanan Street. The packaging and brand title were lurid, the stall was huge - much bigger than any I'd seen before in a similar spot - and they were brazenly giving out free samples of their highly addictive product to anyone who was curious.<br />
<br />
You'd imagine I'd be furious at this attempt to ensnare the Glasgow Christmas punter, but I wasn't. I was quite content, and later on I was cursing my failure to pick up some samples for a couple of my good friends.<br />
<br />
The legal high in question was of course nicotine, and the samples being handed out were of a particular e-cigarette brand whose name I don't remember. The arrival of e-cigarettes - and I suspect this is the first Christmas they'll be under more than a few Christmas trees around the country - is going to cause a great many people to do a great deal of head scratching as they ponder a great many difficult questions.<br />
<br />
I keep writing the word 'great' perhaps because e-cigs are certainly great news for existing tobacco addicts. Cigarettes are hideously unhealthy. Nicotine for the most part really isn't (though I learned in a past life that high doses can turn mice temporarily into cute, immobile hand warmers). If we've found a way to deliver nicotine - and nothing else of concern - into the lungs of those who are addicted to it in a manner that is safe and appealing than we should be celebrating and promoting it's use to all those who are unable to quit their cancer sticks.<br />
<br />
But who should be promoting their use, to whom, and how? This question needs to be asked with urgency. It's all very well weaning people off cigarettes with a cheaper, healthier alternative, but how do we as a society feel about non-smokers becoming smokers (vapourers?) of these new products.<br />
<br />
This question is made more pressing by the observation of the promotional activity that is occurring across the pond. Here's 'movie star' Katherine Heigl puffing on an e-cig with David Letterman and using the words, 'But it's not bad for you. It's a fun addiction!' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMLSSK038Vg<br />
And here's a television advert telling people to "Take back your freedom with blu" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxuBgfbid0<br />
<br />
Nicotine is one of the most addictive of all drugs, so many people seduced by the likes of Heigl and the attractive blu man to use e-cigs as their first smoke/vapour experience will be surrendering their freedom and submitting themselves to an expensive habit. Maybe it's not as expensive as tobacco, but it'll still be an unnecessary and persistent financial pressure.<br />
<br />
Should a substance with such addiction potential be marketed in such ways? I believe not. It's a harm reduction product that should be prescribed and sold in pharmacists or on regulated websites, after appropriate agencies have subjected the devices to rigorous safety tests. The stall on Buchanan Street should be an NHS, anti-smoking stall, helping people to start the new year "smoke" free, not a private company pushing unregulated, addictive legal highs to all and sundry.<br />
<br />
But e-cigs do have to be available to the general public, and they should be more available than cigarettes. If I'm offered the trade of e-cigs being available in corner shops if tobacco products no longer are, that is a deal I would happily embrace.<br />
<br />
Like so many drugs, the availability of safe nicotine might also be an excellent opportunity to better treat or prevent some very costly and traumatic medical conditions.<br />
<br />
This is where the neuroscientist in me comes out. Schizophrenia and psychosis in alzheimers have been linked to the alpha-7 nicotinic receptor gene, nicotine improves attention and reduces impulsivity in schizophrenia, and might even be protective against later development of the disease: http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=160&page=2216&journalID=13<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether nicotine is therapeutic in schizophrenia, smoking certainly isn't. People with the condition die much earlier on average than the rest of the population, and they generally smoke like chimneys. Their health needs to be protected by diverting them to e-cigarettes as soon as possible.<br />
<br />
Nicotine might also help memory in early dementia, but there is a long way to go in researching nicotine's therapeutic or even cognitive enhancement potential.<br />
<br />
For the moment, it's worth remembering that legal or illegal, you can't protect people from the harms of drugs if they are insufficiently regulated. Government needs to step up and get to grips with this issue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-91691653990834632012012-12-17T12:26:00.001+00:002012-12-17T12:26:25.097+00:00Concerned parents need to take up arms for the new 21st century War on Drugs<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The vital drug policy
debate that is increasingly occurring worldwide is encountering some
difficult obstacles. The passage up the lower slopes of the political
mountain is getting increasingly smoother, as can be seen in the
substance of the Home Affairs Select Committee report that was
published last Monday. But when the arguments reach the political
pinnacle, they are met with the usual intransigence and a gentle
nudge off the nearest cliff-edge, only to resume their long ascent
back to the top table.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Much of the problem
faced by the arguments for reform is created by the language used to
characterise those arguments. These arguments are sometimes deployed
by reformist advocates themselves, and sometimes by the clumsy
journalists that report them, but each mention of “ending the war
on drugs” or “liberalising the drug laws” creates a narrative
in which drugs are winning a war or winning their freedom. In a
policy debate that follows this narrative, the figures at the
political pinnacle are being asked to admit defeat in a war, failure
of their policies and to announce tolerance of the existence of what
is widely regarded as a social evil. Even on a good day it is hard to
imagine political leaders doing one of these things, never mind all
three.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The slogan “end the
war on drugs” has to go. Like the “Robin Hood tax”, it may have
been good as a rallying cry to raise the profile of the cause, but it
is essential that it gets ditched before the final push.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In my speech to last
year's Liberal Democrat conference proposing the Liberal Democrat's
new policy I suggested we adopt new weapons for a new, 21<sup>st</sup>
century war on drugs. The 21<sup>st</sup> century war should continue
to be a war on drugs, but the goal of eradication of drugs from
society was always unattainable and has to evolve into a different,
and potentially achievable goal.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The 20<sup>th</sup>
century war was ugly and imprecise, effectively carpet bombing large
areas of our cities with myriad harms. It was a war in which
collateral damage appeared to be an explicit goal rather than an
accident best avoided. In a war on <i>drugs</i>, why were <i>humans</i>
going to jail? The 21<sup>st</sup> century war on drugs should
instead take inspiration from ancient history and adopt a distinctly
Roman style of capture and enslavement. It should be defined by the
goal that drugs can be be our slaves but never our masters.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And that goes for all
drugs. When a hard-working citizen returns from work on a Friday
night and demands a soothing head massage from their servant drug,
who are we to dictate whether that drug be a glass of red wine or a
cannabis joint. The state has a role in educating on how a drug best
be handled, and if a drug looks like it has ambitions to become a
citizen's master, the state and citizen need to be able to work
together to put that drug back in its place, or to help the user
dismiss the drug if the situation becomes too perilous.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are far too many
citizens around the world who's lives are currently ruled by drugs.
Where heroin or crack is master, many are compelled to steal, deal or
prostitute themselves to unsavoury men on dark streets. Where
cannabis becomes master, all too often the instructions coming from
the drug are mutating into the bizarre and isolating orders from the
voices of psychosis. There are many drugs whose power over their
users becomes so great that the other things of importance in their
lives are neglected. Partners, children, jobs, cherished pastimes,
all falling by the wayside because of the unchecked power of illegal
and unregulated psychoactive drugs.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And it is not just
users that fall victim to the power that drugs hold. When greed and
ambition are combined with the presence of drugs and a dearth of
other opportunity for achievement another kind of victim is
frequently created. With the heady combination of greed and drugs as
master, those who get involved in the drugs trade have been drawn
into a life fraught with danger of incarceration or extermination at
the hands of their peers.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So how do we achieve
this drug war victory in which drugs are our servants and never our
masters?
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Well, I'm going to set
an example by shifting abruptly from metaphor into clear description
of what policies and procedures a post-reform UK could employ.
Despite the pro-reform debate in the media being dominated by
extremely sensible advocates such as Tom Lloyd - the former chief
constable for Cambridgeshire - and representatives of the charities
Release and Transform, the media still throws up daft speculation.
Will class A drugs will be available at corner shops? Will
legalisation lead to widespread cannabis experimentation and
increased incidence of psychosis resulting from that?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The positions of these
prominent reformers and myself have come from careful consideration
of evidence and the utilisation of logic and reason. All combined
with a determination to reduce the harms that drugs and the laws
governing their use cause to individuals and society.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For me the evidence and
logic points to the immediate adoption of the Portuguese system in
full. Their addicts are getting treated, heroin addiction is much
less prevalent and their jails are less crowded. Their investment in
drug services combined with their decision to decriminalise
possession of drugs for personal use have been a resounding success
for drug users and their families. Rather than tolerating drug use,
anyone found in possession of drugs is referred to a Commission for
the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction. The message being sent is not that
drug use is ok, but that the government cares and wants to help users
find health and happiness.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I am in no doubt
however that Portuguese services could be better still. In
Switzerland and a growing number of European countries that have
followed their lead, heroin assisted recovery clinics are being
utilised as means of engaging addicts with treatment services. Heroin
is far more effective than methadone at reducing street drug use,
drug-related criminality and retaining users in treatment so that
their other social, economic and medical problems can be addressed.
Heroin clinics, where the drug is provided for use inside secure
premises under medical supervision, can reach those chaotic
individuals for whom methadone is at best a stop-gap between hits of
the real thing and at worst just another deeply unpleasant
prescription inflicted upon them by the state.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Heroin assisted
recovery clinics provided with much broader eligibility criteria than
at present could really help users and their families to find hope
that they need not live a life of criminality and squalor. But such a
policy can also reach those victims of greed that decriminalisation
does not. The more heroin addicts are attracted to new clinics and
other means of rehabilitation, the more the requirement for criminal
suppliers to fill that gap in the market is undermined. Only by
effectively treating as many existing addicts as possible can we have
a fighting chance at removing the dealers from communities and
preventing them recruiting another generation into the same grim
lifestyle.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Please excuse the
return to metaphor but pharmaceutical heroin really is the slave that
nurses the stricken addict and protects him or her against the
domineering master that is the heroin available outside the clinic's
walls.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As effective as
decriminalisation was in Portugal, it can not be a policy endpoint in
itself. Why would you take away the intended deterrent of
criminalisation of possession but still leave the manufacture and
supply in the hands of criminals with all the negative consequences
that entails? Without consideration of the international context any
rational examination of Portugal's decriminalisation policy would
find it to be utterly bizarre.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Legal regulation of
drugs was not considered as a policy solution in Portugal only
because they were a signatory to the UN drug conventions. Yet in
recent weeks Uruguay and the US states of Washington and Colorado
have announced their intention to introduce regulated supply of
cannabis for recreational use in direct defiance of these
well-meaning, but utterly misguided documents. If Uruguay can do it
they why should the UK not be a pioneer, perhaps devising a middle
way between Uruguay's state monopoly and the American free market
model, a carefully designed model that will have the best chance at
public and international acceptance.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The British public are
rightly concerned about the potential for cannabis to compromise the
mental health of young people. Having lived with the traumatic
presence of a psychotic family member in my own life for the last 15
years, I have long been driven by a desire to prevent other families
having to navigate the distressing events and uncertainty my family
has been forced to endure.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Cannabis legalisation
does not have to be a blind leap of faith into an unknown, chaotic
free market. Why would we take cannabis out of the hands of immoral
criminal profiteers and place it into the hands of immoral corporate
profiteers? Doing so would likely imperil the mental health of the
population and we should resist such a model as fervently as we
should rail against the status quo.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Instead we should seek
to design a model for which capture and enslavement would be an
eminently suitable metaphor.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If cannabis is to be
sold in shops it should be sold by trained professionals who have
been educated thoroughly on the various risks and harms that the drug
presents. Those professionals must then be responsible for educating
customers in turn. Of vital importance is that every cannabis user
should be able to identify the early warning signs of psychosis in
themselves or in their peers. Indeed without that goal, cannabis
legalisation loses a lot of its appeal to me. Given the prevalence of
psychosis in society, the early age at which it can attack, and its
devastating long-term impact, you'd think that teenagers should be
being taught about psychosis anyway. To legalise a drug whose users
experience psychosis at twice the rate of the general population and
not to provide that education as a condition of purchase would be
negligence of the highest order.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When a customer does
experience signs of psychosis, it is imperative that we learn from
that in order to adjust our advice to the rest of the cannabis-using
population, and it is with that in mind that I propose an online,
structured, consumer support community. When a user takes a
particular strain or preparation, they should be strongly encouraged
to review their experience with that form of the drug. Much as many
online vendors now tailor recommendations to their customers with the
phrase “users who purchased x also purchased y”, the
cannabis-using community could be given recommendations based upon
their enjoyment of particular strains and preparations of cannabis.
Such an online space would hopefully be welcomed by users as a means
of identifying the strains that they would most enjoy, but would also
be very useful in diverting users away from strains that might
compromise their sanity or other aspects of their health. The
possibility of consumers agreeing to the combination of this data
anonymously with medical records would also rapidly advance our
understanding of the relationship between cannabis and health, both
positive and negative, and help us modify the regulatory model to
better serve the interests of users and the community in general.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Cannabis is a dangerous
drug. The families of those who have developed psychosis associated
with its use are very right to be vocal in highlighting those
dangers. What needs to be recognised however is that their child's
illness was born in an unregulated illegal market. These families
have a choice. They can fight to preserve the prohibition system that
so tragically failed their children, or they can fight to create a
regulated system in which children are better protected. With adults
being served by legal vendors, it will be so much harder for dealers
to maintain a worthwhile income by dealing to children. Rather than
the paltry fines we see for alcohol resale to minors, concerned
parents can lobby for severe punishment for those who deal to under
18s. They can also join me in lobbying for the provision of much
improved mental health and drugs education in schools. The skunk they
so deplore is a product of the black market profit motive. To fight
to preserve the illegality of the drug is to promote skunk's
dangerously dominant position in the market and the livelihoods of
the hated individuals who corrupted your child's mind.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Reform of drug laws is
only going to go one way. Gone are the days in which we can aspire to
arrest and charge everyone using cannabis. We can't afford the
expense, and society would not tolerate the persecution of children
being a priority. We also know from international experience that
greater enforcement does not lead to lower use. The deterrent effect
is a myth (at least at the population level). Concerned parents have
to instead consider how their children would be better protected and
start participating in the debate in order to promote their family's
interests. The regulatory model that is coming should not be shaped
by the concerns of bureaucrats and drug users alone. Concerned
parents and families who have fallen victim to prohibition's failings
have to be the loudest voices at the negotiation table if the harms
of cannabis are going to be effectively restricted.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One issue parents
should engage with is the problems that might arise if there were
companies who would profit from the artificial promotion of cannabis,
or particular strains. It might therefore be wise for commercial
interests to be excluded from the market altogether. The best way to
prevent advertising and marketing encouraging consumers to make
decisions against their interests and those of society is to as far
as possible ensure that nobody's wealth would be dependent upon
continued use of the drug or of particular forms of the drug.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is quite possible a
state monopoly is the only model that can demonstrate to the voters
that legalisation is a process we are embarking upon with appropriate
care, with the highest regard for the health and happiness of the
nation.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If this proposal works
in reducing the harms people experience as a result of using
cannabis, and the many harms associated with the illegal trade, then
it would be highly responsible to extend the model to other drugs.
One by one we can capture and enslave drugs into service of health
and happiness, releasing people from the yoke of addiction and the
impact of the crime and ignorance that goes hand in hand with
prohibition and the illegal market.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
While Nick Clegg should
be lauded for being the first sitting government minister to demand a
change in our approach to drugs, David Cameron is also right to
reject a Royal Commission. For too many people 2015 will be years too
late. There are teenagers (some even younger) smoking cannabis
regularly in all of the UK's cities and towns, blissfully ignorant of
the horrible, desperate, psychotic life they are risking. There are
young addicts all around the country prostituting themselves to fund
their next fix. Putting themselves in harms way because politicians
don't have the courage to accept that the best treatment for them and
their community is to provide them with a clean preparation of their
drug of choice. And the lottery of criminalisation keeps making its
daily draw with no-one asking why young, black, and poor seem to be
the balls that keep dropping out of the machine, while middle-class,
white, cocaine-user, banker and politician keep spinning around and
around without a care.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Drug policy reform is
not about liberating drugs. It's about liberating people from
ignorance, persecution and the drugs that have power over them. Can
we please finally declare a war on drugs so that we can capture and
enslave them and put them to work easing our pains and helping us
smile. Without a proper war on drugs with sensible, realistic goals,
too many people will be left to fight and lose their own personal
battles without the knowledge, help - and in some cases drugs - that
they need to triumph.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It doesn't take courage
to call for a two year examination of the available evidence. It does
take courage to stride proudly in front of public opinion, call for
the adoption of policies that we know have worked elsewhere, and
present an innovative model that can finally start to bring dangerous
drugs under effective control.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I implore any
politician reading this to find that courage.</div>
Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-29217951228025672892012-12-12T01:44:00.000+00:002012-12-12T01:47:17.864+00:00Cannabis should be legal BECAUSE it is harmful<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Some people have been pointing to this article by Patrick Cockburn </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-this-the-tobacco-moment-for-cannabis-8349054.html as something that should be read before uncritically accepting the HASC recommendations.</span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">This is the letter I wrote in response to a previous article by Patrick and another by John Rentoul that were published in the IoS last year. I thought it would be worth publishing it again. An edited version was published the week after in the IoS but I can't find it online. I'm very happy the Independent has printed an editorial this week that has called for decriminalisation of drugs despite Patrick Cockburn's articles on the subject. Please understand that I do not criticise Patrick Cockburn in any way and only have sympathy for what he and his family have had to endure.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dear Editor,</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">(in reply to the articles of John Rentoul and Patrick Cockburn of the</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">5th of June 2011)</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I last had a letter published in the Independent on Sunday on the 15th</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">of September 2002. It was a desperate plea for increased education on</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">mental health issues informed by my deeply distressing experience of</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">my brother's worsening psychosis. Within that letter I said "We don't</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">need it to be easier to lock up the mentally ill. We need a society in</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">which everyone knows how to look after their mental health and can</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">look out for the health of others." Some 9 years later, and with a</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">brother sadly still severely limited by his condition, I am now a</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">passionate campaigner for the strict control and regulation of a legal</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">cannabis market. I have taken this position because I recognise the</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">potential within a strictly regulated legal market for that education</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">on mental illness to be delivered directly to people who have around a</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">doubled risk of developing schizophrenia. If cannabis was sold from</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">pharmacists and there was a requirement to undergo education on the</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">early warning signs of psychosis before people are permitted to use,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">then I do hope that John and Patrick can recognise that "legalising"</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">cannabis can present a marvellous opportunity to intervene early in</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">psychosis and reduce its impact upon young lives, families and</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">society. Permitting use by adults should also reduce the viability of</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">criminal enterprises that deal to children, and increase the ability</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">of the police to rightly target such enterprises. Prohibition did not</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">stop Henry Cockburn using cannabis from the age of 14. I desperately hope that</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">controlling and regulating the market, alongside improved education in</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">schools, can reduce the level of use in the next generation and reduce</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">the incidence and severity of the terrible condition that Patrick and</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I have had the misfortune to witness first hand.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ewan Hoyle.</span>Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-85117246331240573232012-07-05T14:22:00.000+01:002012-07-05T14:22:24.615+01:00May, Milliband and Clarke talk drugs as Lib Dems conspicuously silent.<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">In the last couple of weeks three major UK political figures have spoken about drugs and drug policy for a variety of reasons. It will not come as a surprise that they have demonstrated hypocrisy, ignorance and an irresponsibly casual disregard for evidence and expertise. What has been disappointing is the complete lack of any Liberal Democrat voices presenting the counter-arguments, highlighting the hypocrisy, and stressing the importance of evidence in policy-making.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
The first to speak was Theresa May, responding to the advice of Les Iversen, the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Professor Iversen was appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee drugs enquiry and suggesting lesser use of criminal penalties for drug possession and greater use of administrative penalties like the removal of a driving license or an obligatory education scheme. Theresa May's response was quick but ill-considered: </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">"I have a very tough view on drugs. That view is informed by people I speak to who have seen the damage the drugs have done to people in their family," she said at a lunch for journalists at Westminster. "I think there are far too many people who think drugs is something you can do without it having an impact, but it does have an impact." </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/19/theresa-may-drugs-adviser-penalties" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.<wbr></wbr>co.uk/politics/2012/jun/19/<wbr></wbr>theresa-may-drugs-adviser-<wbr></wbr>penalties</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
There are a few things that this response implies. Clearly she believes that the ACMD do not wish to restrict the harms caused by drugs to society despite the fact this is clearly part of their remit. She also implies the ACMD don't regard drugs as having an impact on the people who use them, which is again patently absurd and I'd imagine rather insulting. Finally she asserts that her second hand experience of drug use anecdotes somehow trumps the careful deliberations of a council of drug experts. </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Imagine a government-appointed panel of medical experts presenting a recommendation to a health minister on reducing the harms to society from cancer. If the minister was to reject those recommendations out of hand citing his or her second hand knowledge of people who have suffered from cancer, people would have no doubt about their startling incompetence. Why is drug policy different?</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
The second figure to speak was Ed Milliband, defending the shadow business secretary - Chukka Umunna - after he admitted using cannabis in his youth. </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Ed stated "<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">"I think everybody is entitled to a past, and a youthful past if you like, before they go into public life," </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-backs-chuka-umunna-over-drugs-confession-7903216.html" target="_blank">http://www.independent.<wbr></wbr>co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-<wbr></wbr>miliband-backs-chuka-umunna-<wbr></wbr>over-drugs-confession-7903216.<wbr></wbr>html</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
If everyone is entitled to a youthful (drug-using) past, how is it justifiable to criminalise people for living a "youthful" present. Umunna is just the latest in a very long list of politicians that have confessed to past drug use. Perhaps the politicians are so relaxed about criminalising users because it is so disproportionately young people who are black and poor whose lives are blighted by being caught and punished. The nocturnal habits of the middle class students most likely to become future politicians are quite rightly not a priority for law enforcement. If a conviction does disrupt the life of a middle class student, they will of course be less likely to find themselves in employment, never mind political office, so will have lost their chance to affect the law.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
The third and most significant contribution came from Ken Clarke in his own evidence session at the HASC drugs enquiry on Tuesday. His recognition - the first such by a government minister - that the war on drugs in the UK has "plainly failed" was refreshingly frank, and his support for evidence-based policy encouraging <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/03/britain-losing-war-on-drugs">http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/03/britain-losing-war-on-drugs</a>. Sadly, when decriminalisation was presented as a potential solution he chose not to talk about evidence but about his personal view that the loss of the deterrent effect of risk of arrest and criminal sanction would be too great. If he were only to examine the evidence for such an effect he would find it very weak indeed, and certainly not strong enough to shut down open consideration and debate of the topic. <a href="http://transform-drugs.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/classification-and-deterrence-wheres.html">http://transform-drugs.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/classification-and-deterrence-wheres.html</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
What has disappointed me most though about the last couple of weeks has not been what has been said but what hasn't, and who hasn't entered into the debate. The Liberal Democrats are part of this coalition government, but yet Theresa May and Ken Clarke are speaking for a government which will not change the laws on drugs (except presumably to make them 'tougher' around legal highs for example). </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Why are our senior politicians silent? I picked up a potential clue the other day while being quite bemused by the Lib Dem response to Cameron's proposed welfare reforms. The position stated by Clegg and Alexander was that they were "relaxed" about the proposals. This shocked me, not just because the welfare reforms proposed were utterly repulsive to me, but because that was exactly the word used to express the leadership's feelings about the drug policy motion that was passed near unanimously by conference last year. Can they really have the same attitude towards borderline evil welfare reforms and our party's new drug policy?</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
A few days later it dawned on me how these policy areas could both provoke "relaxed" attitudes. They are both policy areas in which the polls might tell the leadership that what they believe is unpopular. They are relaxed about the proposed welfare reforms because they don't feel it would be politically wise to call them simply awful. Polls tell them the public like them. They are relaxed about the party's drug policy, not because they disagree with it, but because they don't feel it would politically help them to admit that they agree with it wholeheartedly. </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Cameron, May and Clarke go unchallenged because the party leadership have decided they're going to do the easy thing, not the right thing, the exact opposite course to what was promised in Clegg's conference speech last year. This analysis fits in with the hints that Liberal Democrats are going to spend the rest of this parliament bringing absolutely nothing new to the cabinet table. I have heard there is a feeling that having policy proposals knocked back by the Tories will make us look weak, leaving me to presume that our role will just be trying to stop the Tories doing their worst. So, rather than establish our principles as an independent party over the next three years, in the eyes of the public we'll instead be morphing into the whingeing liberal wing of the Tory party. </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
Now that's weak.
</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
The advice of our PR "gurus", timidity of our leaders, or both is removing all the risk, passion and honesty from our politics, and rapidly diminishing the prospect of us being once again respected and favoured by the electorate.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-size: small;">
<br /></div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-54449267148260086522012-04-09T09:40:00.004+01:002012-04-09T11:08:18.204+01:00Dear Anonymous, Please don't be the Leeroy Jenkins of drug policy reform.I read with concern that the online activist organisation "Anonymous" have chosen to initiate a cannabis legalisation campaign http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/04/anonymous_announces_opcannabis_phase_1.php on the very same weekend that the Guatemalan president, Otto Perez Molina, has made the most nuanced, sophisticated argument for reform to come from a head of state in my time as a drug policy reformer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/07/war-drugs-latin-american-leaders.<br /><br />I am concerned because your unelected group of activists, while no doubt meaning well, do not present the same nuances, nor do you possess enough understanding, of the options for reform or the potential harms of the drug of which you speak.<br /><br />One of the "hysterical anti-cannabis campaigners" some liberalisers describe turns out to be in fact be a "good liberal" psychiatrist persuaded by the steady accumulation of evidence that the links between cannabis and psychosis are real: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01bwmvt (from 17:50). Like so many medicines both ancient and new, cannabis is a dangerous drug AND a medicine and needs to be regulated as such.<br /><br />So Anonymous, you are wrong to say that cannabis is not a dangerous drug. You may also be quite wrong in your mode of activity. Phase 1 appears to be completely benign, though it will likely be an unhelpful display to the rest of society that the usual suspects support cannabis "legalisation". I am also very uneasy that "Phase 1" hints at further phases of Anonymous activity. With the US government being presented with the best arguments for reform by Latin American leaders in the near future, we really do not need them to be distracted by stunts in support of the poorer, tired, traditional arguments for reform. History is littered with instances of acts and campaigns that piss off enemies delaying indefinitely the eminently reasonable changes the acts were meant to bring about. I'm pretty sure the Falklands would be the Malvinas by now if the Argentinians hadn't invaded in the 80s. And Osama bin Laden was trying to get American troops to LEAVE the Middle East when he started his campaign of terror. I'm not comparing you guys to Osama bin Laden. I'm just saying that, if Phase 2 or 3 involves being dicks in the eyes of the government just because you can, then that kind of stuff tends not to work the way it's intended.<br /><br />If you want to push the "free the weed" agenda, you would be much better off drawing attention to the moderate arguments for gradual reform. Once we have achieved the strict control and regulation of legally available cannabis, then the argument on whether to regulate lightly or continue strict regulation can begin.<br /><br />And apologies for the Leeroy Jenkins line. It was a crude attempt to speak your language. Hell, I can't even be bothered embedding links (did I even say that right?)<br /><br />And please don't take this as an attack. It's a plea for you guys to be a help rather than a hindrance. We're so close to achieving our shared goal.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />Ewan.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-9394280883578305222012-03-30T11:27:00.004+01:002012-03-30T11:34:58.267+01:00Maintenance funding and access to higher education in Scotland.The Herald this morning reports that the intake of poor pupils to university in Scotland is the lowest in the UK http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/education/scots-intake-of-poor-pupils-for-university-lowest-in-uk.17169194?_=1101345c98cd475727c535ef86f2ba8c4e991a20 , and we still have the highest drop out rates. I've written the letter below in order to offer a potential explanation:<br /><br />"It comes as no surprise to me that Scotland continues to hold the "UK's worst" status in attracting poor pupils into higher education and keeping them there. A simple examination of the financial support available to Scottish students relative to English ones reveals Scots to be at a striking disadvantage. A Scottish student from a household with a £26000 annual income will receive £5333 in loans and grants in 2012/13. An English student with the same household income will receive £7035, a whole 32% more than their Scottish contemporaries. It appears the furore over the rise in tuition fees south of the border has blinded Scots to the fact that our students are being asked to scrabble around for the necessary up-front fees for their food and lodgings, while English students study in relative comfort. It's high time Scottish politicians considered the funding of higher education with the needs of students and our economy at the forefront of their thoughts. With both eyes fixed on the morning's headlines, their paralysis on this issue risks seriously constraining social mobility in Scotland.<br /><br />The sources for this information are here:<br /><br />http://www.studentfinance.direct.gov.uk/calculator/studentfinancecalculator/1213/ <br />http://www.saas.gov.uk/student_support/support_packages.htm#young_inside <br /><br />It's worth investigating. As the incomes rise the disparities get even larger."Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-42969853324013028632012-03-08T13:28:00.004+00:002012-03-08T13:55:29.434+00:00A party leader talking about drug policy!I've been highly critical of politicians in the past for failing to engage with drug policy as an issue that is vitally important to the safety and well-being of the people of the UK (eg bit.ly/LibDrugs ). So I was absolutely delighted to hear Willie Rennie's speech to the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference at the weekend in which he laid down the gauntlet on the issue and challenged Alex Salmond to pull his finger out and get to grips with it.<br /><br />The message was one seemingly designed to engender sympathy and understanding for addicts, highlighting the difficult lives that have often contributed to their situations and calling for professionals to be given the freedom to deliver the personalised services that give each individual the best chance of turning their lives around.<br /><br />For a politician to try to encourage sympathy for addicts is brave and admirable. A more hard-headed politician might have tried to encourage sympathy for the many victims of the acquisitive crimes committed by addicts, or the parents of the kids that dealers draw into the drugs underworld. Who knows, perhaps that tactic might be stage 2 of the campaign. If Alex Salmond doesn't rise to the challenge, I dearly hope there is a stage 2. Too many people will continue to suffer if we don't see policies change.<br /><br />Here is the passage of the speech in full (with thanks to Caron at http://carons-musings.blogspot.com/2012/03/in-full-rennie-tells-scottish.html):<br /><br />"Late last year I spent a day with Turning Point in Glasgow. They help drug addicts – they give them a chance to turn their lives around with support that addresses all the issues in the life of the addict, not just the addiction. <br />Drug misuse is a health problem, but the solutions are not only medical.<br />Addiction is often a symptom of wider and deeper social problems. <br />Mental health, housing, lack of work skills, victims of child abuse can be factors that lead to drug misuse.<br />Therefore the support needs to address all these needs rather than the symptom.<br />Scotland continues to face a drugs crisis with thousands of homes blighted by the addiction, with addicts forced to steal, prostitute their bodies and deal in drugs just to get through one day to the next. <br />Drug dealers are the parasites that feed from the victim host.<br />On my visit to Turning Point I met Mary. <br />Mary has a six year old son who is cared for by her brother. Mary was in crisis but still had hope. <br />Her ambition was to feed her boy breakfast and take him to school. <br />For most this is the daily norm, for her it was a lofty dream.<br />Mary deserves an opportunity just like anyone else. She deserves a chance to recover. <br />I think we owe her that chance.<br />Too often moral rather than professional judgements dominate the drugs dilemma. <br />Every drug addict is different. <br />There is no one-size-fits-all-solution.<br />We need a flexible and patient focussed approach.<br />We should not seek to restrict options for moral reasons but ensure that trained professionals are able to deliver the service they think best for the patient.<br />I’m not sure if Alex Salmond has visited Turning Point in Glasgow. I don’t believe he’s spoken to Mary. <br />He’s certainly not championed the issue.<br />I am sure he cares about it. I don’t doubt that.<br />But the time that a leader devotes is a reflection of their priorities. <br />The leader of the Scottish Government needs to look again at his diary and make the time to lead on drugs.<br />Our First Minister prefers to court the rich and the powerful rather than the dispossessed and the vulnerable..."Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-52124709850037947742011-09-22T12:30:00.003+01:002011-10-14T09:09:56.981+01:00My speech to the fringe event on cannabis regulationThis is an edited version of the speech I gave to the fringe event "Legal regulation of the cannabis market: How, why and when" yesterday:<br /><br />I said in my speech proposing the drug motion on Sunday that the documentary Killer in a Small Town was a major inspiration for me in my drug policy campaigning, but I do also have another personal motivation for my work that stems from my family's experience of insanity. I have a brother with schizophrenia and the effect of that upon my family is a major motivation in my wish that the government control and regulate cannabis. The science suggests that those who smoke cannabis have around a doubled risk of psychosis. There is a lot of debate about whether this link is causal or just correlation. Psychiatrists will tell you it is causal. Users will tell me that it is correlation often combined with some degree of personal abuse in my direction.<br /><br />My position on the matter is that it is much better to be safe than to be sorry. I have a Masters degree in Neuroscience. I have read the evidence and find the causation explanation both biologically plausible and the best fit to the epidemiological data. If we sold cannabis from pharmacists then, even if it the relationship was mere correlation, an individual with a doubled risk of psychosis would be armed with the knowledge to identify the early warning signs in both themselves and their friends. If customers experienced problems with their use it is my hope they could go back to the pharmacist and be diverted onto other strains or encouraged to abstain if necessary.<br /><br />I have settled on pharmacists and not coffee shops. The Dutch coffee shop model is absolutely not one we should follow. The continued illegality of the supply chain to these coffee shops means that they are generally controlled by organised crime groups. This is obviously not a satisfactory endpoint for regulation. But even if we regulated all aspects of the trade, if I am slightly offended by the sight of a cannabis outlet in an otherwise charming street in Utrecht, how would the genuinely conservative members of our society respond to it?<br /><br />Why should cannabis be the first drug for which full legal regulation is proposed? It is pure political expediency. Myself and colleagues commissioned a poll last year which asked 2000 people whether they would prefer a variety of drugs were lightly regulated like alcohol and tobacco, were prohibited as they are now or were strictly controlled and regulated by the government. <br /><br />The strict control and regulation measures described included things like pharmacy sale, age restrictions and bans on branding and marketing, prices set by an independent panel in order to maximally undermine criminals and yet deter use. Full education on harms given before people are permitted to use for the first time, and manufacturers, distributors and retailers competing for government contracts with profits directed into drugs treatment and education programs.<br /><br />Cannabis came out very clearly as the currently illegal drug that people wish to be regulated by the government. 33% wanted it lightly regulated. 37% wanted it strictly regulated, making 70% in favour of legal regulation in total. The next most favourable result was Magic Mushrooms with 52%, while ecstasy had only 39% in favour of regulation. A much higher proportion for legal regulation than ever found in traditional polls, but not ready for the next step. The most striking thing in the cannabis figures however was the fact that regulation was appealing to many of the people you would presume would bristle at the thought of legal cannabis. Totals for legal regulation for conservatives were 67%. Daily Mail and Express readers 66%. When you break it down to examine those in favour of strict regulation, it becomes very interesting indeed. 42% of women favoured strict regulation, to only 32% of men.<br /><br />The newspaper readership group most in favour of strict regulation. Any guesses?... The Daily Mail and Express at 41% support.<br /><br />The single demographic group most favouring strict regulation... 35-54 year old women. Presumably the group containing the most mothers of teenage children. They understand that prohibition isn't working and strict regulation presents the best opportunity to restrict children's access to the drug. And we should be absolutely determined to do so. While adult risk is doubled if they use cannabis, under 15s who smoke regularly are thought to increase their risk of subsequent psychosis by 5-fold. The benefits of strict regulation don't need to be explained to these women. They can just look at a policy proposal and recognise its potential. <br /><br />I'd like to pan out slightly at this point and look at the international picture.<br /><br />The Americans look like they are going to be the first to legalise cannabis, and I really hope they are not. Looking at the Proposition 19 ballot that was narrowly rejected in California, there was nothing in it that suggested health harms should be taken seriously at all. I think this is a grave mistake. <br /><br />I was talking to some researchers from the American RAND corporation at a conference in the Netherlands this summer, and they were saying that if they legalised cannabis the price would reduce by 80%. This creates some real problems. If they want to tax the drug sufficiently so that the price of it doesn't plummet, creating a presumed increase in use rates, then they risk retaining a massive black market in cannabis. Americans culturally just instinctively don't like strict regulations getting in the way of the market.<br /><br />In the UK though, I'd hope that we could recognise that this experiment with legal regulation necessitates really strict control. I would be happy to see the state growing the plants, distributing them to pharmacists and using the proceeds for education and drug treatment. I am uncomfortable with there being anyone in the business who has a financial incentive for people to use more cannabis or for young people to start using. If there is that 80% gap in the UK market too, then we could spend an awful lot of money on regulating the market and still raise a fair bit of tax on top before we came close to failing to undercut the criminal dealers.<br /><br />On the issue of the drug conventions. The more careful we are, the less the UN would be able to object to our measures. If we say that our state is going to grow all these different strains of cannabis securely for restricted sale to only those who are fully educated on health harms, then they might find it hard to say no. We have to go up to the UN and say these conventions are restricting our ability to protect our citizens from harm. As I said last year, the argument “the people of Britain would like to get high” isn't quite so persuasive. There are of course important medical issues to consider, and I would certainly welcome the day when people with serious medical conditions can use cannabis for those reasons.<br /><br />The control and regulation process could work to get cannabis farms out of suburban houses, stops Chinese and Vietnamese gangs smuggling in child slaves to tend plants, reduce the proceeds for organised crime, and vastly increases public knowledge of the early warning signs of psychosis. If evaluation indicates a relaxation of the strict regulations would better reduce harm then those steps should be taken.<br /><br />I think the new legal market could compete on price, quality, predictability of dose, choice and ethical considerations. We may have to seriously consider issues of convenience (a pharmacist is often going to be further away than a dealing neighbour or the plants you are growing in your basement), and stigma (do we need to give cannabis users pads of things that look like prescription sheets so that they can hand them over like everyone else does in a pharmacist and receive the drug in a closed bag)?<br /><br />To finish, I just want to emphasise again that cannabis regulation has to be about reducing harm as far as is practically possible. It would be pure folly to start at the level of regulation we have for tobacco just to see how it goes. How we deal with all of our drugs from alcohol to heroin, to energy drinks that are attractive to children needs to be looked at. <br /><br />But if the UK could demonstrate it is possible to strictly control and regulate cannabis effectively I think the world could breathe a sigh of relief and reap massive benefits from following our example.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-9360764771150040132011-09-03T19:08:00.003+01:002011-09-03T20:15:55.017+01:00Tackling Corruption in Football has to Start on the PitchI don't like cheating, and like all football watchers I particularly don't like cheating when it happens against my team (like this diving **** in today's European Championship qualifier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKnOmJOagg). But what I particularly dislike is the attitude of the game's governing bodies towards cheating, and their failure to punish it in any way, thus sending the message "cheating is fine if you do it well". Instant review systems are employed in a variety of other sports in order for matches to be settled by skill, chance and all those other things that make sport interesting, but not by the mistakes of officials.
<br />
<br />In top flight televised matches we could surely have an appeals system for contentious decisions without too much problem, and such a system could have been very useful in the case of the diving **** linked to above. But the system should also be used retrospectively after the end of matches. I propose the use of "Proper Sporting Effort" Commissions (the potential for a suitably stigmatising acronym is of course entirely coincidental) who would be tasked with the review of all tapes after games and the distribution of suitable punishments for A) Simple simulation where no contact has been made B) Going down easy (tested by the simple question "would the person have fallen over there if they were being chased by a hungry bear/zombie/father of a groupie?") C) Making deliberate contact with the tackling player where that contact would not have happened if the suspect had continued running normally or taken appropriate avoiding action. I do hope C) could become known as Lambert's Law because of the grievous assault Paul Lambert was subjected to by Jorg Albertz in a 1999 Old Firm game (video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFimrKcF9dQ medical report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/11/99/battle_of_britain/508731.stm) This particular "dive" left Lambert unconscious and knocked out a tooth or two but of course was punished with the award of a penalty to the offending player (12 years ago now and the memory of the injustice is still fresh).
<br />
<br />I leave it up to the authorities to decide what would be appropriate punishment. Admittedly if it were left to me I would probably prescribe something between a year's ban from competitive football and jail time for the afore-mentioned Czech diving ****. And if you'd asked me a few hours ago the sanction could well have been a sight more medieval.
<br />
<br />Seriously.
<br />
<br />Cheating should not be so handsomely rewarded. It should not be "just part of the game" at any level.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-42411221599853701532011-08-17T19:45:00.002+01:002011-08-17T19:58:03.319+01:00It's time for the UK government to fully review drug policyIt is possible to access the full text of my BMJ "personal view" article "It's time for the UK government to fully review drug policy" through the link below.
<br />
<br />I hope to have further articles in The House magazine and Liberator before conference. If anyone would like me write any other articles then I'd be happy to consider opportunities.
<br />
<br />http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.d5235?ijkey=WQL6MXTLBRdG0OW&keytype=ref
<br />
<br />You can also read my views on the association between drug policy and the recent riots and looting here (I didn't approve the title) http://t.co/nzEQx7EEwan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-29413452219241229142011-04-22T10:11:00.004+01:002011-04-22T14:23:37.404+01:00If the No campaign is in the gutter, the Yes campaign has to go for the gut.This has been a hugely frustrating campaign for me. I was passionately advocating for AV even before the election last year http://ewansliberalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/02/lib-dems-need-to-embrace-alternative.html and am sorry to say that the Yes campaign has been a great disappointment. The No campaign is trotting out outrageous lies about how much AV will cost, the end to one person one vote and the implication that in a two-person race the loser could win (amongst others. They really have no shame). In response to these false, but highly emotive claims, the Yes campaign has been trotting out wooly assertions that "AV will make your MP work harder" and "AV will mean an end to safe seats", without presenting any great evidence that this will be the case.<br /><br />If I was to be leading the Yes campaign, I would be trying to engage the voters' guts, to evoke in them an outraged visceral response to injustice. But unlike the No campaign, I think I could do it with the truth.<br /><br />So what is that truth? The truth is that after First Past the Post elections we don't actually know the population's true political opinion. In 2010, 16% of voters voted for a party or candidate that was not their favourite. How can we call ourselves a democracy if our citizens' votes are disproportionately represented and on top of that our citizens' votes do not even represent their opinions? FPTP encourages the electorate to second guess the behaviour of others and to LIE in the polling booth. If we want a properly functioning democracy, we have to have an electoral system which encourages the citizens to express their true opinions.<br /><br />Perhaps the Yes campaign have rejected this argument as only 24% of people have ever voted tactically, but surely there is a deeper sense of justice in the country that can be tapped into. Surely people don't want representation born out of their neighbour's deception. It's time everyone came clean, put their political cards on the table and we found out what kind of country or constituency we all want to live in.<br /><br />An auxiliary argument to this is the fact that FPTP prevents rapid change. The expenses scandal heralded a renewed disgust among the population at the behaviour of their politicians, but FPTP holds us rigidly in a two-party (or three-party) system. Maybe it is time we had new parties or independents with new ideas entering into politics and widening choice and diversity. Consider if, under FPTP, the most wonderful new party that was all things to all men (and women), had all the right policies to make Britain great, and was just plain perfect strode on to the scene. That party would find it extremely difficult to overcome the wasted vote, "they can't win here" effect. <br /><br />AV allows people to vote honestly for the party of their choice, no matter their electoral history. It allows us to sweep out the old guard and usher in the new. Politics can be fast, and dynamic, and INTERESTING. Single issue parties can arrive on the scene and force politicians to take notice and respond to their concerns. Everyone knows where everyone stands, so politicians can be genuinely responsive to the needs of the people.<br /><br />In short, AV is democracy. FPTP is not. If the No campaign is in the gutter, the Yes campaign has to go for the gut. If we don't, I fear we lose.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-17694463582365756852011-03-06T14:08:00.003+00:002011-03-06T14:40:01.043+00:00"Overshadowing" Nick Clegg's keynote speechThe Scottish Sunday Express this morning reported the Scottish Lib Dems' unanimous backing of the amendment I had written on diamorphine maintenance treatment. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/232924/Lib-Dems-want-heroin-given-out-free-on-NHS/ <br /><br />Here's the speech I gave in support of the amendment, followed by the letter to the Express in reply to their coverage and the quotes from the other parties:<br /><br />It is first important to place this motion in its proper context. The UN Office of Drugs and Crime report Scotland as having the highest prevalence of opiate use in Western and Central Europe. Drug related death rates here have doubled since the late 90s and are on a long-term upward trend. Scotland, with one of the worst heroin problems in the world, needs one of the best drug treatment systems in the world in order to combat it. <br /><br />The persistent offenders project in Glasgow is a great example of police and addiction workers working together to produce positive results. POP identifies those addicts who commit the most crime and takes the time to engage with them and work through their problems. Savings of £14 to society for every £1 spent can not be ignored. In talking to one of the project leaders this week, I was delighted to hear there are plans to extend this outreach service to tackle street prostitution. These young women experience horrendous suffering in their daily routine. A civilised society can not stand back and let them endure it. The police and a drugs project working together managed to eradicate street prostitution in Ipswich after the tragic series of murders that happened in 2006. We have to believe that we can achieve the same in Scotland.<br /><br />Projects like POP can only go so far though. There will always be a significant group for whom methadone or abstinence will be unattractive or ineffective. Switzerland, Holland, Germany and Denmark have all adopted heroin maintenance clinics in order to target this difficult population. Switzerland adopted the policy in the early 90s. In the referenda that have challenged the policy, the people have consistently backed the policy by large majorities. It is both effective and popular. The UK trial of this system was also a success, with substantial reductions in criminal activity and street heroin use by the participants. This model that is spreading is typically of twice daily supervised consumption on clinic premises, with no risk of the diamorphine that is prescribed getting out on to the streets. The routine of this treatment and its associated psychological, social and employment assistance creates stability in previously chaotic lives and often leads to patients moving on into other treatment options or to abstinence.<br /><br />We need services that don't allow the most problematic or vulnerable drug users to slip through the cracks. And we need the best evidence-based treatment options so that we have the best chance of helping them to recover. Putting these services in place will save the lives and alleviate the suffering of a great many drug addicts, but also of great importance is that the more heroin users we treat, the less impact they will have upon Scotland's communities. By treating addicts we can reduce the viability of drug-dealing in our communities, we can greatly reduce the acquisitive crime committed to fund drug use, and we can reduce the likelihood of more young people getting drawn into the same mess. <br /><br />We have a choice. We can spend a relatively small amount in tackling Scotland's drug problem head on. Or we can let addicts steal, prostitute and deal to meet the massively inflated prices of the criminal market. This money lines the pockets of organised criminals and a proportion finds its way to the Taleban, which gets approximately 50% of its income from the heroin trade. 89% of the world's illicit opiates come from Afghanistan.<br /><br />Please choose the cheaper option and support this motion.<br /><br />and the letter to the Express:<br /><br />The statements from the other parties regarding the Lib Dems' plans to<br />provide diamorphine maintenance clinics demonstrate just how hard it<br />will be for Scotland to tackle its very serious heroin problem. It is<br />laughable for the SNP to recommend we "stick to proven methods" when<br />drug-related deaths have doubled in the last ten years and Scotland<br />has the 6th worst heroin problem in the world. Labour allege "blanket<br />provision" and "very limited trials", when in reality this service<br />would only be available to at most around 10% of the most disruptive<br />and vulnerable heroin addicts. All the trials of this approach have<br />shown it much better than methadone in reducing crime and street<br />heroin use, and the many European countries that have adopted it as<br />policy have found it both effective and politically popular.<br />Diamorphine maintenance IS a recovery programme and it frequently<br />leads to abstinence. I suspect what society wants most is for<br />politicians to adopt the most effective way to stop heroin users<br />robbing from the people to give to organised crime and the Taleban.<br />They want street prostitution eradicated and they want their children<br />to be safe from pushers. All the evidence suggests that the best<br />diamorphine maintenance services can help achieve these goals.<br /><br />If any candidates want to discuss going on the offensive with this, then please let me know.Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-55375897597809491472010-12-08T21:33:00.004+00:002010-12-08T22:24:09.804+00:00Can we not have a student premium to go with the pupil one?I'm happy to hear that the threshold for repayment will be rising annually rather than every 5 years. But the other announcement that the government will be paying the first year's fees for every student that received free school meals and that universities will pay for the third has left me rather befuddled. This measure might encourage the school leaver's attendance at university but it will only benefit their situation several years after they leave university if they are working in a well-paid job. This is a benefit tht will essentially be paid to a relatively affluent individual who 10-20 years ago used to be poor as they cease repayment earlier than they would have without the support. It is purely cosmetic and accepting of the ignorance that people have of the repayment plan. <br /><br />What is worse, the requirement of the university to pay for the 3rd year discourages that university from taking on more disadvantaged students than is absolutely necessary to satisfy government's opaque requirements. Why would they want to take on poor people if they bring in less money? This will put an absolute limit to social mobility rather than encourage it.<br /><br />The proportion of disadvantaged students going to the most selective universities remains poor http://www.offa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Sir-Martin-Harris-Fair-Access-report-web-version.pdf (Chapter 2) and government plans are unlikely to significantly address this. One thing they could do is to impose an access levy so that the most selective universities get to keep more of the fee that they charge over £6000 as the average grant received by students at the university increases. Take in more disadvantaged students and you will receive more money. It's a student premium! Much better than the anti-student premium the government is proposing. Students will want to go to universities that keep as much of their fee for teaching as possible, so the economic pressures to admit an increasing number of disadvantaged students will be magnified. And from this research from the Sutton Trust it seems clear that that could be a good thing for the quality of the student intake as well http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/comprehensive-pupils-outperform/Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-81963094243497326752010-11-10T20:21:00.004+00:002010-11-10T22:14:33.012+00:00Dear Lib Dem backbenchers, Tell the truth on fees before anyone else gets hurt.I'm furious.<br /><br />I'm furious for a variety of reasons relating to the higher education funding debate, but not Millbank-trashing furious. No, if I was to mask up and stick a railing through a window, it'd be the NUS who should be pulling down the shutters (I would never take direct action. I'm just trying to attract attention to the seriousness of this situation).<br /><br />I'm furious because the backbenchers of my party aren't courageous enough to tell the truth to the public.<br /><br />I'm furious because various student groups who are receiving generous funding to support themselves through university are telling future applicants they won't be able to attend when government proposals should IMPROVE fair access.<br /><br />And I'm furious because the Scottish government is clinging on to a funding policy which is pinning both Scottish universities and students in disgraceful poverty.<br /><br />I was going to call this blog post "Failing to see the wood for the fees". Deferred fees are not the determinant of whether young people can support themselves through university. <strong>Maintenance funding</strong> determines whether students can feed and house themselves through their studies and maintenance funding will RISE following the implementation of government proposals. MORE students from poorer backgrounds will be able to attend higher education if they aren't in ****ing prison after the latest riot.<br /><br />The fury really started for me when I read that Lib Dems were lobbying Vince Cable to cap the fees at lower than £7000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11627039 because when you examine the implications of this you have universities struggling to fund courses and widen access on a lower income than they have at present and for whose benefit? The lowest earning graduates wouldn't be saved any money. The middle half would save a little. The highest earners would save a whole lot more*. When the **** did the Lib Dem back bench become the parliamentary defenders of the marginal financial interests of the wealthiest and most fortunate in society?<br /><br />Higher deferred fees should only deter those who would not receive net benefit from a university education. Those who aren't academically inclined should look elsewhere. Those who are bright, motivated, highly skilled or entrepreneurial might be able to earn more and be happy without having to struggle through 3 years of academia that doesn't really motivate them. Student groups should be demanding the high quality careers advice that maximises this "good" deterrence and stop driving the "bad" deterrence that comes with poverty and a misunderstanding of the type of debt or costs that studying will bring.<br /><br />If you really want to fight for the right of the disadvantaged to a top quality education, fight for an access levy so that only those institutions with at least average access to the disadvantaged can keep 100% of their £9000 fee.<br /><br />But the one thing that made me spitting-mad, grind-your-teeth-while-reading, livid was when I started comparing the maintenance funding available to English and Scottish students and drew up this table: http://bit.ly/cfzp7q (also contains evidence to back up * above) So, in the land of free ****ing tuition, we see fit to let some students try to live on nearly £3000 less than their English counterparts while our universities go to the wall. It's no wonder the disadvantaged kids in Scotland are the least likely to go to university of all the regions of the UK http://bit.ly/ddSEzt Mr Salmond. Mr Russell. You can stick your empty-gesture free tuition up your respective voluminous backsides. I want a quality education for this nation's youth, and I want them to be able to enjoy it without rushing from lectures into a part-time job that they can't support themselves without.<br /><br />Children. Students. Open your eyes. Aaron Porter doesn't have your interests at heart. Don't buy the lies about your ability to go to uni if your family is poor. Like some on the Lib Dem back benches he took a stance a while back and he's too much of a coward to tell you that stance is no longer correct. Please tell him (in as splenetic terminology as your youth allows) to call off this farce before anyone else gets hurt.<br /><br />I never thought I'd engage in a near-socialist rant in favour of higher tuition fees and in defence of a Tory minister. But the government is proposing a fairer and better means of funding higher education in this country. Could we please start trying to properly get this message across?Ewan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.com3