Why Cannabis Should be Illegal

So what are the dangers of smoking cannabis?
Source: www.livescience.co.uk

Not even the most diehard advocates of legal cannabis would make the claim that the drug has no harmful effects. Whilst it may be enjoyable in moderation, consuming it excessively can cause illness and sometimes even death. In 2013 in the United Kingdom over 8,000 people lost their lives due to cannabis, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Furthermore in the United States the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) reports that excessive cannabis consumption led to 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million “years of potential life lost” (This is calculated by deducting the age people died at due to cannabis consumption from the life expectancy). The same report reveals that, shockingly, excessive smoking was responsible for a staggering 1 in 10 deaths amongst working age adults (20-64). Even if you only consume a little at a time, getting high frequently can still have long term health implications.  

Yet the cost of marijuana to our society goes beyond the deaths of the people who consume it. Due to cannabis being a depressant, smoking and driving is another huge problem with an average 3,000 people getting killed or seriously injured annually in the UK thanks to smoke-driving. Furthermore there is a huge economic cost to excessive cannabis consumption; according to the Institute for Cannabis Studies (ICS) and a government report it sits at a staggering £21.8 billion annually. Of this £3.5 billion due to an increased burden on the NHS, £11 billion thanks to cannabis related crime, and an incredible £7.3 billion in lost productivity! On the subject of crime more than 40% of all violent crime committed in the UK has been committed whilst the perpetrator was high (according to the ICS).

Yet looking at statistics alone doesn’t cover the harm caused by marijuana. The biggest burden is felt by the addicts, their families, and their friends. Cannabis is often a contributing factor in abusive relationships, and many families break down as a result. A huge proportion of homeless people in the UK are there thanks to their addiction to cannabis. Every year people lose their jobs, their spouses or their children to cannabis abuse, and yet still people want legal marijuana.

You’re shocked, right? Well I promise you that all the above data is absolutely 100% true… Just not about cannabis. The drug I was actually writing about was alcohol, which is perfectly legal. Replace all references to cannabis/smoking/high with alcohol/drinking/drunk and it will make a lot more sense. The fact is alcohol is a much more destructive drug, to both an individual and society, than marijuana. Yet you will get many prohibitionists decrying the legalisation of cannabis whilst at the same time planning to get blind drunk at the next work Christmas party. They are completely blind to their own hypocrisy, and it is simply astounding.

If you want to continue to support supporting the ludicrous war on drugs, and in particular the ludicrous war on marijuana. Fine*. I just hope that you’ll be consistent in applying your logic and join the temperance movement.

*Well actually it’s not fine, I’ve written why it’s not fine here.  

Sources:

Cannabis related deaths (UK): http://bit.ly/1gUxEEv

Smoke-driving deaths (UK): http://bit.ly/1BtB7kH

Marijuana consumption in the US: http://1.usa.gov/1d7aWk2

Economic Impact of cannabis abuse (UK): http://bit.ly/1pmE13L

Crime and cannabis: http://bit.ly/1IQTVJ6

Stop saying the Election was Fixed – You’re Embarrassing Yourselves

The result may not have been what you wanted, but that does not mean that the election was rigged.

If you’re a Labour supporter, like me, then the election results will have been devastating to you.  We lost pretty damn badly, in our former heartland of Scotland we were reduced to a pathetic one seat. We lost many prominent people; the Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander and Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy both lost their seats to the SNP, whilst Ed Balls was narrowly defeated by the Tories. But most of all, we’ve lost our leader Ed Miliband, whom many of us expected to be currently drawing up plans for how to form a government.

We weren’t the only losers though, the Lib Dems saw their ranks devastated. Vince Cable, gone. Danny Alexander, gone. Simon Hughes, gone. After the bloodshed, only eight Lib Dems were left, which leaves them on the same number of seats as the DUP. It was a mixed night for the Greens, their vote share increased hugely, and Caroline Lucas easily held on in Brighton Pavillion. However they failed to pick up Bristol West or Norwich South, meaning they still only have one MP. UKIP was in an even worse shape with Nigel Farage losing in South Thanet and Mark Reckless losing in Rochester and Strood. The only real successes of the night were the Tories and the SNP, both of whom did better than expected.

The disastrous result for Labour was simply not what the polls had led us to believe. We were neck and neck with the Tories, there was a sense of optimism amongst Labour ranks. We had a much easier path to the 326 seats for a majority; the SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP would never prop up a Tory government. With the Lib Dems facing bleak prospects, and UKIP only expected to gain a maximum of three seats, there was no way for them to get to 326, even with DUP backing.

However that does not mean the election was rigged.

I have no idea why the polls were so terribly wrong, some people suspect a late swing to the Tories, or a repeat of the 1992 shy Tory affect. Whatever it was, the fact is they weren’t accurate. Over the past 48 hours I have seen an increasing number of posts in Labour supporting groups that claim that the election was stolen by the Tories. I’ve even seen one person suggest we get the UN to get involved to investigate the apparent fraud. Look, I know you’re not happy with the result of the election, but that does not mean that it was rigged. Claiming that it was rigged is ridiculous, this country is a real democracy, not some country with a dictator. Claiming that the election was rigged is also damaging to our future prospects. By saying the election was stolen by the Tories suggests that we don’t actually have to change anything about our strategy, our message, or our policies.  Attitude like that will result in defeat again in 2020. We need to move on so that we can put up a united front to this Tory government and successfully fight the elections that will be held this time next year.

Crying out that it is all a conspiracy is not helpful, and rather embarrassing to the rest of us in the Party. Please stop. If you want to do something useful then join a protest, start a protest. But don’t just complain. 

Here's a selection of posts claiming that the election was rigged from the Facebook group "I'm Backing Ed Miliband" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/iambackingedmiliband/)

I would hope that they'd have been destroyed by now

Or the real world explanation that more people voted for them?

Yes, because a survey of people from Labour supporting backgrounds is
going to be totally representative of the general population.

There's one thing not to read an article before posting it and making a comment,
it's another thing to not even read the headline.
*BLANK* Ballot papers were stolen

I'm devastated to, but resorting to conspiracy theories to explain our
loss needs to stop. 

The Hypocrisy of Liberals and Conservatives

The huge amount of people killed by
guns is unique to America in the
developed world.
Source: BBC

According to the CDC in 2013 there were 11,208 firearm homicides, or 70% of the total homicides committed in the United States.  This number is not even close to the total number of people who were killed by firearms in 2013, which stood at a colossal 33,363. Despite this huge problem, the debate over gun laws is a hugely divisive debate.

Many Americans, mostly on the conservative side of the spectrum, will attack any law that restricts the proliferation of firearms as unconstitutional due to the second amendment. Whilst federal gun laws are arguably the weakest they have ever been, for many gun lovers, they are still too strong. Furthermore, despite the failure of the Senate to pass new gun regulations in 2013, many gun rights activists are terrified that the government is going to confiscate their guns.  As a result of the hysteria, many red states have gone ahead and tried to nullify federal gun laws.

In 2014 the Washington Post pointed out that “In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010.”

The nullification of federal laws outraged many liberals who decried the efforts as unconstitutional. However I find that many of these same liberals are perfectly happy to advocate nullification in an area that suits them: Marijuana laws.

Source: Pew Research

The federal government classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, which means that it has a high potential for abuse, it has no medical value, there is no way to use the drug safely consume it under medical supervision, and no prescriptions may be written for it. Now whilst you may take issue with this classification (I believe marijuana should be legalised), that is not what this article is about. Whether you like it or not, this is federal law in the United States as it stands today.

As a result of the federal government’s ridiculous laws on marijuana, many states have effectively tried to nullify federal law on the issue. As it stands now 19 states have legalised medical marijuana, 14 have decriminalised possession and four (plus Washington D.C.) have legalised marijuana for recreational purposes. This is a direct violation of federal laws. Many conservatives have railed against the wave of marijuana legalisation in states across America, frustrated that they have effectively nullified federal law.

So my question to liberals is this: why is it acceptable to nullify federal laws on marijuana but totally unacceptable to nullify federal gun laws? And for conservatives, why is it acceptable to nullify federal laws on guns but totally unacceptably to nullify federal marijuana laws?

These questions have totally stumped me, I can't think of a way for liberals or conservatives to justify their respective beliefs. If anyone would be kind enough to offer me an explanation, other than the obvious that people support whatever results in them getting their way, that would be great! 

If You Thought 2012 Was Messy, Just Wait For 2016

If you remember anything from the 2012 Republican primaries, it is likely that you remember just how much of a mess it was. The debates were especially memorable, in part because there were so many of them, but mostly because of the gaffes of the candidates and the actions of the audiences.

The crowded field hurt the Party significantly in 2016
source: www.slate.com

Rick Perry completely derailed his bid when he declared “It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone; commerce, education and the… um…” it took him 15 minutes to remember that the third was energy. Mitt Romney showed himself to be completely out of touch with the ordinary American when he offered Perry a bet of $10,000. When one of the moderators asked Perry about the huge amount of executions that he had signed off on as governor (234, by far the largest amount of any governor in modern times) he received a resounding applause from the audience. The audience also booed a former solider because he was gay and when Ron Paul was asked whether or not he would be prepared to let a man die because he didn’t have health insurance, the audience enthusiastically shouted “YES”! I could go on, but I feel you get the picture.

The primary was also a mess due to the huge amount of candidates that led the polls for a short amount of time. Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum all led the polls for periods of time leading to absolute media frenzy. Michele Bachmann was also considered to have a real chance after she won the Iowa Straw Poll (despite the fact that it has no indication of real support, as votes are effectively bought).

Will the 2016 primaries be any different to the mess that was 2012? Well yes and no. Firstly the Republican Party has learnt from the mistake of having far too many debates, in 2016 there will only be ten official debates. Any candidate who decides to participate in unofficial debates, will be “sanctioned”.

However the cavalcade of comedy that was the Republican Primary will likely repeat itself in 2016. One of the problems is that there is no ‘obvious’ candidate for the Republican Party in the way that Hilary Clinton is the ‘obvious’ candidate for the Democratic Primary. As a result the field is wide open to any Republican with presidential ambitions. At the moment I would say there are no fewer than 11 potential front runners. That number is about double the amount of front runners in 2012. This would make it an even bigger farce than 2012. The crowded field also means that Republicans will coalesce around their candidate far later than Democrats (assuming Hilary does win), further weakening their chances of winning the presidency.

Jeb Bush: He is the former governor of Florida and son of former President George H.W. Bush. Despite his family name, his moderation and support for comprehensive immigration reform make him the best hope the Republicans have of winning in 2016. Whether they actually choose him is another kettle of fish entirely. Very likely to run

Ben Carson: Carson is a Tea Party hero and a very smart guy (he is a neurosurgeon after all), and as a black man he is frequently held up by the Tea Party as evidence that they are not racist. However he has never held elected office before and I doubt will actually win the primary. If he did he would lose the Presidential election to even the weakest Democrat.  Very likely to run

Chris Christie: Before his administration (he’s governor of New Jersey) became engulfed in scandal after scandal, most people felt that he had the best shot of winning the primary. Unfortunately for Christie several scandals have completely jeopardised his chances. Despite this I rate him very likely to run.

Ted Cruz: Another darling of the Tea Party, Cruz has established himself as one of the most conservative and radical Senators since he won election in 2012. In 2013 he was one of the primary causes of the government shutdown that infuriated Americans. It is interesting that so many of the birthers that considered Obama ineligible to be President because they believed, without evidence, that he was born in Kenya, support Cruz despite being born in a foreign country (Canada). Of course the colour of their skin totally doesn't have anything to do this inconsistency. Almost certain to run

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee first ran for the Presidency in 2008 before losing to John McCain. He recently left his lucrative job at Fox News, leading many to speculate that he was preparing himself for a Presidential bid in 2016. Probably will run

Bobby Jindal: He is the current governor of Louisiana and has been rumoured to have been mulling a run for the Presidency for years. He recently attended a prayer rally held by the American Family Association (which the Southern Poverty Law Centre defines as a hate group) in Louisiana; Rick Perry used a similar event to help launch his (first?) failed presidential bid. Might run

Rand Paul: He is the son of Ron Paul and has inherited a lot of his father’s support from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. However he is both more moderate and electable than his father. Interestingly if he does run he will be unable to run for re-election to Senate, even if he loses in the primary. This means that he takes a huge risk by running in 2016! Almost certain to run

Rick Perry: Yes, he is seriously hoping to run again in 2016. His chances, however, are slim to none. Might run

Marco Rubio: For the first half of 2013 Rubio looked like he had a real shot at the presidency, easily outpacing his opponents according to the Huffington Post’s average of polls. However since then he has largely dropped off the radar. Might run

Paul Ryan: Despite being a member of the establishment, Ryan is on good terms with the Tea Party base. This kind of support could work very well in a primary election; add to that the visibility he was lent when Mitt Romney chose him as his running mate in 2012, he could be a strong candidate. Despite this he is not polling strongly, which could result in him skipping the race. Considering his relative youth (he’s 45), there will be plenty of future potential races. Might run

Scott Walker: The governor of Wisconsin could prove a real player in next year’s primaries if he decides to run. However the scandals in his administration would receive far more news coverage than they have currently, which could trough a spanner into the works for Walker. Might run

The Left is Back in Greece

Shockwaves have rippled throughout Europe as the anti-austerity party, Syriza romped to victory in the elections held in Greece on Sunday. Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza has promised to renegotiate the bailout terms with Greece’s international backers known as the Troika (a coalition of Eurozone countries, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank). His aim is to end the devastating austerity that has caused the Greek economy to experience near perpetual recession for the past six years. When asked what Syriza’s victory meant, Tsipras responded “the vicious cycle of austerity is over.”

Following the financial catastrophe of 2008, Greece’s debt became a massive problem for government finances. Greece needed to borrow money to keep the country running, but was unable to borrow from the banks due to the extortionate interest rates it was being charged. To save the Greek economy from collapse the Troika offered the Greek government a bailout. In exchange the Greek government would have to slash spending by huge amounts to balance its books. However this was the wrong time for austerity, private spending was already low due to the crash, so government spending was required to keep the economy afloat. Unfortunately the terms of the bailout resulted in plummeting private and public spending, creating a vicious cycle of decline. As many Greeks lost their jobs or had their pay cut, government tax revenues went down and welfare payments went up. However since the government was required to try and balance its budget, this created a bigger imbalance and forced further cuts. This meant less money in the economy, so more people were made unemployed, which in turn made government finances even worse off.

No wonder people voted for the most viable anti-austerity party; Syriza.

In the election Syriza managed to win 36.4% of the vote and 149 seats (just two short of a majority) compared to 27.8% and 76 seats for New Democracy, the senior party in the ruling coalition. This victory for Syriza is a line in the sand for both Greece and Europe. It has shown what will happen when you unleash harsh austerity on your people. Greece is far from unique, in Spain the anti-austerity and left-wing party Podemos was leading in the polls at the end of last year, despite only being founded in January! It also serves as a warning to establishment left-wing parties across Europe, including Labour hear in Britain. The rise in popularity of Syriza has been possible thanks to the collapse of the establishment left-wing party, Pasok. It entered into a collation with the conservative New Democracy and helped to unleash the austerity Greece has had to undergo. Other establishment left-wing parties should be wary before carrying out similar programs back home.

It is a new day in Europe, what happens next with Greece will decide the fate of the European integration project that is the European Union.  

Syriza supporters celebrate following victory in the election
Souce: BBC

Same-Sex Marriage Becomes ‘the Norm’ in American States

The expansion of marriage rights has made great progress in 2014. In total 18 states expanded marriage rights to same-sex couples, entirely through the courts system.

The first of these cracks opened up in December 2013 when, to everyone’s surprise, a federal judge in Utah ruled that the state’s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. Although it was stayed pending appeal, it set the state for what 2014 would become: a battle in the courts for gay rights.

14^th January – Oklahoma ban ruled unconstitutional

23^rd January – Virginia Attorney general stated that he would not defend the state’s ban

10^th February – Nevada Attorney General stated that she would not defend the state’s ban

12^th February – Kentucky told to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions

13^th February – Virginia ban ruled unconstitutional

25^th February – Texas ban ruled unconstitutional

21^st March – Michigan ban ruled unconstitutional

9^th May – Arkansas ban ruled unconstitutional

13^th May – Idaho ban ruled unconstitutional

19^th May – Oregon ban ruled unconstitutional, state did not appeal ruling legalising same-sex marriage immediately in that state

20^th May – Pennsylvania ban ruled unconstitutional, state did not appeal ruling legalising same-sex marriage immediately in that state

6^th June – Wisconsin ban ruled unconstitutional

25^th June – Tenth Circuit Court rules that Utah’s ban is unconstitutional, Utah appeals to the Supreme Court

25^th June – Indiana ban ruled unconstitutional

1^st July – Kentucky ban ruled unconstitutional

9^th July – Colorado state judge rules that the state’s ban is unconstitutional

21^st July – Florida ban ruled unconstitutional, stayed until the 5^th of January

28^th July – Fourth Circuit Court affirms Virginia’s ban as unconstitutional

3^rd September – Louisiana’s ban ruled constitutional, the first set-back thanks to a court for same-sex marriage rights in 2014

4^th September – Seventh Circuit Court affirms that Indiana and Wisconsin bans are unconstitutional

6^th October – The Supreme Court declines to hear appeals in Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, Wisconsin and Virginia

The Supreme Court’s decision on the 6^th of October was huge, by refusing to hear the appeals it effectively upheld the lower courts’ rulings and meant that same-sex marriage was now legal in those five states. This meant that for the first time in American history a majority of Americans lived in states with legal same-sex marriage! Yet the ruling would not only affect those five states, any states without same-sex marriage who were under the jurisdiction of 4^th and 10^th Circuit Courts (there were none left without same-sex marriage under the 7^th Circuit Court) were at risk of losing their bans. Over the next couple of months the six states this applied to (Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming for the 10^th and North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia for the 4^th) all had their bans overturned, whether by court action or instruction of the state government.

7^th October – Ninth Circuit Court rules that Idaho and Nevada bans are unconstitutional*

7^th October – Colorado Attorney General asks 10^th Circuit Court and the state Supreme Court to dismiss his appeals on earlier rulings, they comply immediately

8^th October – Some counties in Kansas and South Carolina issue same-sex marriage licenses

10^th October – North Carolina ban ruled unconstitutional, judge citing the 4^th Circuit’s precedence

12^th October – Alaska ban ruled unconstitutional

17^th October – Arizona ban ruled unconstitutional

17^th October – Wyoming ban ruled unconstitutional (stay lifted on the 21^st of October)

4^th November – Kansas ban ruled unconstitutional (stay lifted on the 12^th of November)

5^th November – State judge ruling in Missouri results in St. Louis issuing same-sex marriage licenses

6^th November – Sixth Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage as constitutional

7^th November – Missouri ban ruled unconstitutional, Jackson County (Missouri’s second largest) begins to issue same-sex marriage licenses

12^th November – South Carolina ban ruled unconstitutional (stayed until 20^th of November)

19^th November – Montana ban ruled unconstitutional

25^th November – Mississippi ban ruled unconstitutional

19^th December – Supreme Court declines to hear Florida’s appeal, marriages will begin on the 6^th of January

The 6^th Circuit Court’s ruling on the 6^th of November is especially important as it was the only circuit court to rule against same-sex marriage. This created a circuit split, which means that the Supreme Court has no choice but to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. This is why I believe that same-sex marriage will become legal in all 50 states by the end of 2015.

Democrats Suffer Worst Mid-Term Defeats in a Generation

The November elections went horrendously for the Democrats, suffering their worst mid-term defeat in recent decades. In the Senate they lost nine seats, the worst defeat of any party in the Senate since 1980, when the Democrats lost 12 seats. In the House of Representatives the Republicans enlarged their majority by making a net gain of 13 seats. The defeat of Democrats in governor races was especially stinging, given the unpopularity of many Republican Governors. The only governor Democrats managed to unseat was Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. However Republicans managed to gain Arkansas as well as three of the bluest states in the country: Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts! The Democrats also lost badly in other state level races across the country leaving the party with control of the fewest states since the Civil War!

There were a few bright spots for liberals; Alaska, Oregon and Washington D.C. all voted to legalise marijuana whilst Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska and South Dakota all voted to raise the minimum wage. In Alaska the Independent-Democrat fusion ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor ousted the incumbent Republicans. In New Hampshire Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen managed to hold off against Scott Brown, making it the only race that was expected to be close that the Democrats actually won. However that was cold comfort for the many Democrats defeated on election night.

There are many reasons why the Democrats lost so badly. The Senate was always going to be an uphill battle due to the number of races held in states that Obama lost twice. Yet the Democrats did worse than they should have, even then. One of the reasons was the abysmal turnout in 2014, at 36.4% it was the lowest turnout since 1942. If you know your history that was in the middle of WWII, when many Americans were a bit too busy fighting to vote. Low turnout tends to hurt Democrats as major elements of their base are even less likely to vote, such as Hispanics and young people.

As a result of the elections Republicans now have control of the Senate and therefore Congress. What they do with this power will have huge implications for the Presidential election in 2016. It also matters a lot for Obama’s judicial nominees who require the approval of the Senate. If a Supreme Court position opens up between now and 2016, expect a truly huge fight.

Obama's party was handed a heavy defeat in the November elections
source:uptownmagazine.com