Drug laws and bans on legal highs 'do more harm than good'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/drug-laws-bans-legal-highs

The UK drug policy commission warns that the current 40 year old Misuse of Drugs Act is outdated and made increasingly redundant by the rise of “legal highs” and increasing availability of drugs on the internet. In its report, Taking Drugs Seriously (the name is either pun intended or unfortunately chosen, or both), the commission points to research sources that indicate that legislating legal highs (soft drug) automatically leads to a decrease in the use of more dangerous substances. The report therefore suggests the government shifts from a drug control legislation to a consumer protection legislation. This new policy would mean that drug vendors will be compelled to prove that their substances meet certain standards and to provide information on dosage and side effects with the drugs.

The government, having always favoured prohibition, is reluctant to contemplate the suggestions uttered by the report.

I don’t have an opinion as to whether drugs should be legal under certain conditions or not. I think the focus should  be on the problems caused by drugs and how to minimize them, and minimizing problems with anything I think is not by definition done best by attempting to shield people from any potential harm. Key to solving any political or sociological problem I think is to start with being open to all sides of the argument. Ironically, I think the government should be more open minded when it comes to drugs.

Coalition commits Britain to legally binding emission cuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/14/historic-climate-change-deal-agreed-chris-huhne

An agreement has been reached among cabinet ministers to accept a legally binding “green deal” that will commit Britain to strongly reduce its carbon emissions over the next two decades. The green deal was recommended by the independent Committee on Climate Change, which was led by David Kennedy. The deal will, if carried out successfully, fulfill Cameron’s promise of leading the greenest government in history.

The target is to have reduced carbon emissions by 60% in 2030 compared to 1990, which will also set Britain on a course to have emissions reduced by 80% in 2050. In order to meet this target, multiple policies will be enforced. 40% of UK’s power should come from natural sources and 31% of new cars should be electric, part of carbon emission still made will be stored underground.

Before reading this article I had the image of the fight against climate change that it was a process going extremely slowly as a result of the huge interest worldwide in energy production that does produce carbon emission. The changes that according to the article will be the result of this green deal seem very significant to me and do inspire hope.

As with Cameron’s commitment to set a statutory minimum of 0.7% of national income to be spend on official development assistance, I think this a wonderful plan and I’m surprised to see these changes being made by a conservative led government. I would be interested to see Labour's, or specifically Ed Miliband's  response to this.

Liam Fox challenges David Cameron foreign aid policy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-challenges-cameron-foreign-aid-policy-2285114.html

David Cameron's plan to set a statutory minimum of 0.7% of the national income to be spend on official development assistance (ODA) has encountered resistance within both his party and his government. Defense secretary for the conservatives Liam Fox has written Cameron a letter expressing his disapproval with this proposed amendment, he thinks the plan is likely to cause the government legal challenges in the future. Fox prefers an alternative in which a target is recognized in legislation and reflected upon in an annual report

According to a source close to Fox, he is in favor of a 0.7% target, but disapproves with Cameron on how to legislate this. Currently this target is not met, in 2009 the percentage of national income spent on ODA was 0,52%.

Some conservative MPs go further in criticizing Their prime minister and party leader by saying it is not wise to increase spending on ODA in times where domestic priorities, like defense, are at stake.

I consider it nothing less than a duty for any wealthy country, like the UK is, to have aid for less privileged countries amongst the top priorities at all times, providing the way it's spend is closely looked after and controlled. In this perspective, 0.7 per cent seems quite small to me, but considering it was only 0.52% not too long ago, legally insuring a 0.7% minimum seems a good start to me.

It surprises me that this proposal is made by a conservative prime minister and my estimation of David Cameron has altered positively by this, especially considering the resistance he encounters.

Clegg lashes out against Tory 'lies' over AV campaign.

Discord in the Tory - Lib Dem coalition has reached a new level of seriousness as Nick Clegg launches a personal attack on David Cameron in an exclusive interview with the Independent of Sunday, 24 April. In the interview, Clegg accuses Cameron of “defending the indefensible” and telling “lies, misinformation and deceit”. The lash is a response to comments made by Cameron in his NO to AV campaign, in particular the claim that AV would favour small extremist parties aroused Clegg’s anger.

Clegg’s outburst comes after weeks in which he’s been relatively silent whilst being personally attacked many a time by Cameron and other opponents of AV, mainly Tories.

The difference in opinion between the two parties on this issue has been apparent since well before this cabinet was formed and the agreement to have the referendum held has been key for Clegg to enter into the coalition. Something Clegg clearly has not foreseen is the influence the AV debate would turn out to have on the relation between the two.

With the result of the referendum destined to feel like a defeat for either of the coalition partners it doesn’t seem to be a given the two will be able to sooth their relation.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ikQR4aH39TcmmrgcyrvTGE9W9Rgw?docId=CNG.4d5cec13881e837510d458bf4cf94e70.5d1

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/clegg-lashes-out-against-tory-lies-over-av-campaign-2274228.html

John Snow shuts again as gay kiss storm lingers on

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/john-snow-shuts-again-gay-kiss

For the second time in a week a gay kiss-in has been held in front of the John Snow, a pub in Soho, London. Both the gatherings have been organized on twitter and facebook in response to a tweet by 26 year old Jonathon Williams, he and his friend were asked to leave after the two men had kissed inside the pub on Wednesday April 13^th. Friday 15^th numerous gay couples showed up in front of the pub to kiss in protest against homophobia, along with other people joining in the protest the gathering was attended by around 300. Thursday afternoon and early evening this number was over a thousand.

Both of the times the John Snow had closed before the gathering was to start and they have turned down all the plenty opportunities they’ve been offered to talk to the media.

The question that rose in my mind reading the article is whether Pubs should be obligated to allow gay people to kiss inside their pub, as of yet I’m leaning towards no. It’s discrimination only if straight people are allowed to kiss, a potential law concerning this issue will be difficult to enforce and maybe this can simply be seen as an issue of choice, if people don’t agree with the pub’s policy there’s plenty of other pubs to go to.

For me personally this would be more than enough reason not to go to the John Snow and I think it’s wonderful to see gay rights are being taken so seriously and are defended in such a peaceful way. Judging from the video I  think I would have very much liked to be there, for the atmosphere and for supporting the statement.

Cameron and Miliband to lock horns over AV as debate divides coalition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/av-david-cameron-ed-miliband

On the fifth of May a referendum will be held in Britain over whether or not the country is going  to adopt a new alternative voting system, known as AV. The system gives voters the option to select multiple candidates in order of preference (they can still vote for just one candidate).

It is proving to be a very significant referendum not only for the influence it will have on British democracy, but also for electoral reasons as both coalition and opposition are divided.

Conservatives are opposed whereas their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats are in favour. Labour, being nearly the entire opposition, is on itself divided.

Across the political spectrum politicians are campaigning for a yes or a no to the AV system. Somewhat surprising to see is that Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, whom, of the three major parties, are strongest in favor of AV, is hardly campaigning it all, the most probable reason being that he doesn’t want to upset his coalition partners, the Conservatives. Ed Miliband, representing a divided Labour party, is in favor of the AV system and has become to represent the YES campaign. He’s being supported in his campaign by LibDem Business Secretary Vince Cable and sees his fellow party member and former Home secretary John Reid join Prime Minister David Cameron on his NO campaign.

I find it interesting to see how this issue shows to go beyond party politics. As interesting I think it is to look at what (electoral) motives politicians might have. You can be assured the politicians have thought about which voting system is most likely to favour them most in the future and it just might influence their position on the issue. Needless to say that this would be the last thing they would admit.

The main argument for AV is to avoid counties being won by a party that has a minority of votes. For example if in a county the party with the most votes only has 30% (or less), with the current system the county goes to that particular party, with the new system the 2^nd , 3^rd etc. votes will be counted until one party has 50% of the votes (or has most votes after all votes got counted).

David Cameron has said about AV that it will favor small “extremist” parties like the BNP or UKIP on the right wing. It doesn’t take a mastermind though to figure out that this is highly unlikely, the parties mentioned are so far from the political centre that they’re highly unlikely to gain sympathy from people voting for parties in that political centre.

Private schools line up to become free.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/12/private-schools-conversion

The UK government is planning a free school policy which will allow communities to set up their own schools, people attending those schools will be gifted the required fees. Private schools are already lining up to convert to free school status. One of them is the Maharishi school in Lancashire. The school has a curriculum inspired by the teachings of former Beatles guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and every day starts off with  a meditation session. Head teacher of  the school Derek Cassels would like as many people as possible and from all backgrounds to be able to benefit from their system of education.

Opposition to the plan comes from advocates of state schools and parents of children attending them. They fear their schools will be devastated by the new plan as a result of people transferring to newly created free schools.

State schools that do well and are valued by pupils and their parents should in my opinion receive support when they need it. Yet if their problem is that people are planning to transfer to free schools the best advice might be (in the words of Bob Dylan) “You better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone, for the times, they are a-changing”.

So instead of looking at the government hoping for (more) support it might be an idea for state schools to look for ways to adapt to the changes in policy by improving their system and making it more up to date. If people are going to transfer from state schools to free schools, state schools might have to merge in order to still make use of all the school building capacity. Teachers made redundant on state schools might have to search for jobs on free schools that are looking for the capacity to take in all the people wishing to transfer.

Personally I would be very much in favour if the school I attend were to decide to experimenting with new methods and alternative curriculums. One reason being that I have always had grave difficulty with concentration and I can imagine meditation sessions just might help.