The War on Drugs

I notice this Monday morning that a Commons select committee is recommending a review of the drugs laws in the UK. Two things to say at the outset. The first is that, apparently, the use of illegal drugs and offences connected with them, have been falling significantly. This may mean the current war on drugs is succeeding or, as I suspect, it simply means drugs are becoming less fashionable. Secondly, there is a wide gulf in cultural outlook of people who were born before 1945 and those who were born since. Yes, as precise as that. The older of the two groups will be, on the whole, very fearful of any liberalisation of drugs laws;the younger group, however, are likely to take a more balanced view. Thus, as the older 'drugs-conservative' group age, or die, or at least vacate positions of influence, the agenda is bound to change merely through the passage of time. That time is approaching. My view is very strong, which is that virtually all drugs should be de-criminalised unless there is a dramatic threat to public health (ketamine may be an example. It is absurd that alcohol and tobacco remain legal while other types of narcotic are not. But, more compellingly, there is a deep philosophical argument that says the state has no business telling peole how they lead their lives. Many people voluntarily take risks and we do not make such activities illegal, as long. of course, as there is an extensive public campaign to demonstrate the risks (as occurs with smoking and alcolhol consumption. True, the activity of persading people to take risks, i.e. use potentially dangerous drugs, may well be a crime, but, here again, we do not prosecute people for persuading them that parachute jumping, hang gliding or extreme mountaineering are good ideas. No, the misuse of drugs is a health and cultural issue and should be treated as such. Ask yourself this question. 'If we were to start again from scratch, knowing what we now know, and drugs narcotics suddenly appeared on the scene, would we handle the situation as we currently are ?' Clearly not. By crminalising the production, marketing and use of narcotics we would be creating a whole new set of crimes and a whole new criminal community overnight. So, we must study, carefully and rationally, the experience of Holland, Portugal and the handful of US states who have voted to legalise cannabis. But I would be more radical. In the specific case of heroin and crack cocaine, the state should offer all current (not new) users free prescriptions in return for agreement to undergo rehabilitation programmes and to use the drugs under controlled conditions. This would destroy the market for such drugs virtually overnight, take away the incentive for anyone to persuade others to start to use such drugs (there would no longer be a commercial interest in doing so, by pushers and dealers)and would eliminate the crimes associated with use and dealing. In particular, users would not have to resort to crime or prostitution to finance their habit. This will only happen, of course, when the demographic as I described above comes about. But that time is coming. I believe that, in ten years time, such changes in law and practice will become publicly acceptable. We should start preparing for that day right now.

Its all about public interest

Later today the Leveson Report is to be published and its detail will, undoubtedly be poured over for some time. To be sure, it's a devilishly difficult issue and anyone who says it is 'simple' is lying. There is a huge temptation to bring in draconian controls simply because much of the print media is out of control. I am tempted to believe that the print media is actually dying out anyway, so that particular problem will solve itself. The gutter journalists will lose their jobs and no doubt work for private investigators where they can be regulated by law without any civil liberties issues interfering. The focus will then have to shift to web and social media generally and whether or how to regulate that. We have already seen the first warning shots with the McAlpine Affair and a number of other unpleasant twitter campaigns. You can't regulate gossip so that will be a tough one. In the meantime, what to do ? The key seems to lie with the issue of what is, or is not, in the 'public interest. There are clear examples either way. The Milly Dowler incident was clearly not in the public interest. Issues concerning MPs' expenses or Jimmy Savile clearly were. It is cases in between these that are hard to judge. For example was the revelation of Harry's games in Las Vegas in the public interest ? (I know it was not a press revelation, but the principle applies). Then, of course, there are the private lives of politicians and public servants in general - come to think of it, who are 'public servants' ? Are school headteachers, heads of broadcasting organisations, newspaper editors 'pubic servants' ? They are certainly engaged in public business, whether or not they are employed by the state. The recent Petraus issue in the USA is a case in point. His private life was clearly a matter of public interest because he handles intelligence and security matters, but what if he were just another four star general ? So, whatever Leveson proposes, and whatever the government tries to introduce, I think a workable (it can never be watertight) definition of 'public interest' must be the keystone of any system.

55 Days

I saw the play 55 Days recently at Hampstead Theatre. I would certainly recommend this excellent piece by Howard Brenton if it comes round your way. It concerns the events and debates leading up to the trial ane execution of Charles 1 in 1648-9. Two issues occurred to me after seeing it. The first was the extent to which the key elements of British government were being shaped at that time, even though it was over 350 years ago. In particular there were the disputes over sovereignty between Parliament (at that time a purged and garrulous institution, rendered impotent by sectarian divisions), and the executive (then the King, of course). All the same issues of where authority sovereignty and power lie that we see today, especially under coalition, were laid bare. Of course, at the time, the protagonists were unable to fathom out how to grant authority to executive government when it was no longer either an hereditary monarchy or a directly elected body. It was only when it was realised, towards the end of the century, that executive government could derive its authority from Parliament that the problem was solved. But is does demonstrate how far ahead of the rest of the democratic world England was. The characters even discussed the possibility of a constitution coming into being and certainly, Cromwell and fairfax favoured a constitutional monarchy - a very modern concept. The second feature was the attitude of Charles towards his own position and ultimate demise. Brenton, I understand, has followed closely contemporary acounts so one assumes the words of his characters are accurate. Charles refused to recognise the authority of the court that condemned him and did not acknowledge the possibility that he, the sovereign, could commit treason. There was also a general sense that he saw himself as the 'embodiment' of the people so he could not betray them. In his words could we not hear the same pleas as those of Milosovic, Saddam Hussain, Mubarak and the like. It seems that the refuge of dictators behind the principle that they represent the state and so cannot be tried by that same state, has a very long history. In the end, of course, the military took over in England, with Cromwell declaring himself Lord Protector. How often do we see reforming revolutionaries become, themselves, dictators, every bit as undemocratic as those they have replaced. Are we seeing this in Egypt today ? Incidentally, before we leave the subject, a footnote on democracy. Sitting on either side of me were Simon Callow and Benedict Cumberbatch with their respective partners. It occured to me that the fact that I, a commoner, could be literally rubbing shoulders with members of the theatrical aristocracy, was indeed a demonstration of modern democracy.

Obama's 'landslide'

I was in the USA last week and taking a look at the aftermath of Obama's win. It was predictable, I suppose, that the Democrats concentrated on the electoral college and called it a 'landslide', which, in that sense, it was, while Republicans stressed the narrowness of the win in terms of the popular vote. Certainly it was not a landslide in this latter sense. Can both sides be right ? Well, yes, I believe they can, but not, perhaps, as the Democrats would have it. We know that there are about 45% of the voters who will support the Democratic candidate come hell or high water (sorry for the unsubtle illusion to Sandy there), while a different 45% will always vote Republican, even if the candidate is deceased. (it happened recently in Missouri). This leaves a central 10% who can be persuaded. Now, of these, Obama won by a margin of about 7-3. Now that IS a landslide. This is why both sides can be right at the same time. It was, I think, a decisive win, perhaps not a landslide in the full sense of the word. Republicans in the USA are taking two views. Some are saying it was very close and that Obama 'bought' his victory with 'gifts' to minorities. They therefore believe Romney's campaign went OK and Obama stole the election. The others recognise that this was a flawed campaign and that Republicanism has lost its way. Well, again, both may be right in their way. The only way in which a candidate is going to be able to claim an undeniable mandate is if they can expand that central 10% to about 20% and win it all. The last president to do this was, arguably, Richard Nixon in 1968. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan also came close. Prospects do not look good. Political beliefs in the USA seem more entrenched than ever.

The press dinosaur

We are still not sure why the dinosaurs became extinct so many million years ago and we certainly know nothing about the prelude to that extinction. But we may know plenty more about the imminent extinction of the print media, and perhaps even the main broadcast media with it. I am pretty convinced that print media will not survive the Internet onslaught. All attempts to generate sufficient revenue through the web seem to be failing. So, I expect traditional newspapers to disappear, though the Huffingtom Post is having a good go at becoming a bridge between the old and the new. Perhaps, well, more than perhaps, 'probably' we are now seeing the great press dinosaur entering its final death agonies. As its demise becomes ever more apparent, its excesses seem to be increasing. Undaunted by Leveson, they are now baying for the blood of suspected Tory paedophiles, lascivious celebrities from the sixties and seventies,corrupt police officers and child abusers in the care system. Now, it may well be that all such people exist, perhaps in large numbers, and that they should be exposed, but the press do seem to be engaging in a witch hunt. I rarely find myself agreeing with David Cameron, but I do on this one. Such a hunt will inevitably spawn many innocent victims. It appears that Lord McAlpine may be one of them. How many more will there be ? Trial by newspaper is an horrific prospect, but I fear it may become common as proprietors and editors try to eke out dwindling sales from the dying embers of a doomed industry. Why should condemned men and women concern themselves with ethics when they are about to mount the scaffold ?

America's unchristian Right

We know that the American conservative right is strongly imbued with Christianity. This is somewhat bizarre. The reason I suggest this is that many of its attitudes are decidedely unchristian. Did Christ not effectively argue that people should pool their economic and social risks by sharing property and agreeing to help those less fortunate than ourselves ? The parable of the Good Samaritan says we should not pass on the other side but should make a special effort to help the disadvantaged and the wretched even if they are culturally or ethnically different to ourselves. Christ affirmed the ancient Jewish tradition that the love of money disqualifies us from salvation. When the multitude, who had come to hear Jesus speak were starving, he told the disciples to feed them before they looked after themselves. How can such Christian values be so assiduously ignored by the American Right in their opposition to welfare, socialised health care, foreign aid and some redistribution of income ? It's a mystery to me.

More thoughts on the US electoral college

I have to claim some credit for calling the US election pretty well though I got the margin of Obama's electoral college victory wrong (assuming Obama wins Florida, that is - why is it always Florida ? Something seems to be rotten in the state). In particular it has indeed come to pass that a very close contest in terms of the popular vote looks like a decisive win for Obama as a result of the distortion of the electoral college. A further aspect does, however, seem to be emerging in this election. That is the increasing polarisation of different sectors of American society, rather than the normal analysis on a state-by-state basis. Women, ethnic minorities and the young are increasingly Democrat-leaning, while white males who are middle aged and elderly are opredominantly Republican. This is potentially dangerous as it can give rise to excessive pluralism and political pluralism is likely to make governing even more difficult than the traditional institutional system of checks and balances has suggested in the past. Before we casually jump on the idea that the USA might become kind of 'Weimar' country where excessive pluralism creates political paralysis and gives rise to right-wing, authoritarian extremism, we need to take care. While the USA remains a staunchly two party system there is a safety valve in place. Thus, when American society becomes dissatisfied with the way they are being governed (or 'over-governed' as many Repubocans might say), it can simply turn to the other party next time elections come round. Mid term elections in the US certainly play that role. In Weimar Germany there was no alternative except another ineffectual, short-term coalition. The point of all this is to say, perhaps, that, although America's two party system looks, at first sight, to be hopelessly (not least by the exigencies of party finance) corrupted and out of step with an increasingly pluralist society, further consideration may indicate that it can actually save America from internal social collapse. In so far as the electoral college underpins the two party system, perhaps it is supportable. With no electoral college in place third, fourth and more candidates might enter the field and enjoy some success. The college helps to keep out too many alternatives and the prospect of more deadlocked results.