The Independent

Also known as the gutter press, the papers present the viewpoints of various segments of society, and give MPs an opportunity to write directly to them.
Post Reply
User avatar
Blakesley
A-team
A-team
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:19 am
XP: 14
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Blakesley

The Independent

Post by Blakesley »

Image
User avatar
Blakesley
A-team
A-team
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:19 am
XP: 14
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Blakesley

Re: The Independent

Post by Blakesley »

A Disappointed Electorate

With local elections looming, voters are increasingly unsure about which party to back. Divisive arguments over antisemitism in the Labour leadership election have, once again, given the impression that Labour is unable to govern. However, relative quiet from the Conservative Party has left voters unaware of what they stand for. The result? An electorate that seems unaware of the options before it and is actively looking for a positive message that they can rally to in the run-up to local elections.

The Brexit divide, in the aftermath of Mrs May's deal passing, is less evident. People are less interested in hearing about the divides in the country and want to know what politicians will do to make their lives better. The electorate is interested in the trade deal with the EU, but that is hardly the end of it. Issues ranging from social care and pressures on the NHS, to the future of unionism, and infrastructure and growth in the country are rising in importance. A focus on child poverty by Labour during the confidence debate raised the salience of that issue.

The challenge for Labour is clear: make clear that there is an absolute intent to confront antisemitism in the party (and begin to actually confront that antisemitism), prosecute a case against the Conservative government, and lay out a positive case for a Labour government. Of course, this challenge is amplified by the shambolic display put on during the leadership election: what was once an opportunity to set out a positive vision for a Labour government devolved into a race dominated by an antisemitism row. Whomever the incoming leader is has a matter of weeks to set out a positive vision for local elections.

The Conservatives under Prime Minister Arthur Stanley have a straightforward challenge as well: to simply lay out their positive case for government. Nobody really knows what Arthur Stanley stands for. Is he more of a Cameron or a May? A vision put out by the government will be important for convincing people that Mr Stanley should remain in office. Mr Stanley's Cabinet features exceptional performers, such as Sir Daniel Redmayne and Andrew Summer, who earned plaudits in their party for their contributions to the confidence debate. Now they need to set forth their plans for the country if they are to earn votes.

The immediate outlook is that both parties stand to lose seats in the forthcoming local elections, as the Liberal Democrats poll higher than they did in previous years. However, the damage to the Conservatives is likely to be less severe than it was expected to be under Mrs May's leadership. Conversely, Labour's row over antisemitism is likely to depress their vote to a degree. The question will be whether either party can create a compelling narrative that provides a final boost before local elections conclude. If one can do that, then they stand to benefit. Our analysis of the polling suggests that the recent loss of Labour support is soft, as is the increase in Conservative support since Mrs May's departure. Whomever takes advantage of that stands to benefit.
User avatar
Juliet Manning MP
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:57 pm
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Kandler

Re: The Independent

Post by Juliet Manning MP »

Legalise cannabis - and ignore the politics of fear

Image
A guest editorial by the Deputy Prime Minister, Juliet Manning



Liam McMahon has a bent for the hysterical.

The Shadow Home Secretary does it well; waxing lyrical with a message perfectly adapted for panicky middle class mums and curtain twitchers. His entire defence of the status quo on cannabis - a policy which locks up young people for smoking a drug which is by and large no more harmful in small quantities than alcohol or tobacco - rests on the premise that a legalisation of marijuana would somehow represent an attempt by the government to foist pot upon “our children.”

I’m reminded of the “Simpsons” character who pleads with her peers: “will somebody please think of the children!” It is textbook politics - the politics of fear. Cannabis is a dark and dangerous drug which will corrupt our children, and legalising it would force them out on to the street to become manic depressive drug addicts with nothing to lose. It’s absurd, but the message works. Liam McMahon knows that.

But the truth is very different. Cannabis is currently only obtainable in the UK from people who are, by definition, criminals: drug dealers who also sell much harder, more dangerous wares. Often, the cannabis sold on the street is extremely potent - and it is cut with various chemicals which make it more dangerous to its consumers. Right now, a 16-year-old can spend just £10 and get a bag of cannabis delivered to his door. He’ll be dealing with a professional criminal, probably part of a gang, and in time he will be exposed to more advanced drug use. Disputes with dealers lead to muggings, violence and knife crime; disputes between leaders lead to murders and vicious assaults. Gangs compete to control the cannabis markets across the country, from inner-city Liverpool to the leafiest of Suffolk shires. And the proceeds of marijuana’s customers go straight to gangs involved in human trafficking and worse.

31% of people in the UK admit to having tried cannabis. All of them have committed a criminal offence; all of them are liable for prosecution and a criminal record. The person who supplied them with the leaves, whether a criminal drug dealer or a friend, committed an offence for which the sentence is several years in prison.

And yet these people, who are not hardened criminals but ordinary working men and women who spoke the occasional spliff on a weekend evening, are being criminalised for making the free choice to use a drug which has an abundantly less harmful profile than alcohol. The following part of this editorial comprises excerpts from the Marijuana Policy Project.
Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use. The U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 30,000 annual U.S. deaths are attributed to the health effects of alcohol. On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the health effects of marijuana. A study published in 2015 found that the mortality risk associated with marijuana was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol.

The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana.

Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. According to a 1998 report, alcohol’s addiction potential is significantly greater than that of marijuana based on a number of indicators. A comprehensive study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine arrived at a similar conclusion: "Millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it … [A]lthough [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."

Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and violent behavior. Marijuana use does not. Studies have repeatedly shown that alcohol, unlike marijuana, contributes to the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior. An article published in the Journal of Addictive Behaviors reported that “alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship,” whereas “cannabis reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication.”

Alcohol use is a major factor in violent crimes. Marijuana use is not. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that 25-30% of violent crimes in the United States are linked to the use of alcohol. According to a report from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, that translates to millions of alcohol-related violent crimes per year. By contrast, the government does not even track violent acts specifically related to marijuana use, as the use of marijuana has not been associated with violence.

Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Marijuana use does not. Alcohol is a major contributing factor in the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is not to say that alcohol causes these problems; rather, its use makes it more likely that an individual prone to such behavior will act on it. For example, a study conducted by the Research Institute on Addictions found that among individuals who were chronic partner abusers, the use of alcohol was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression, but the use of marijuana was not. Specifically, the odds of abuse were eight times higher on days when men were drinking; the odds of severe abuse were 11 times higher.
Marijuana is safer than alcohol. Nobody is suggesting that alcohol should be prohibited or that we should criminalise drinkers. Of course, alcohol can be dangerous: it can be used to excess, it can be addictive, it can be associated with negative psychological and physiological effects. But in moderate, responsible use it is seen as a norm in our society: marijuana should be the same.

Portugal leads the way in drug decriminalisation and legalisation; in 2001, the country decriminalised the possession for personal use of small quantities of almost all previously illicit drugs. The results twenty years on are clear: the country has an extremely low rate of overdose deaths and has reduced the number of HIV-positive people addicted to drugs. It has also saved millions of euros in prison expenses and the level of drug use has not increased.

The legalisation and regulation of cannabis would take this popular drug - which almost a third of British people admit to smoking - out of the hands of criminal gangs. It would be available in a pure and uncorrupted, safe form, with limits upon its potency, from licensed vendors who would only sell to over-18s, in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol are sold today. The sale of cannabis to minors would remain illegal, and its use while driving or operating machinery would also remain illegal. As much as Liam McMahon likes to pretend that this issue is about foisting drugs on to children, it is not: it is about cutting away a lucrative market for criminal gangs, making marijuana safer for the nearly 18 million people who smoke it, and preventing casual users from coming into contact with criminals.

And for those who do become addicted, as for those who become addicted to alcohol, what is necessary is to treat them as victims in a public health issue rather than as criminals. Release, the drugs charity, says arresting users “creates more harm for individuals, their families and society”. It adds that if users are not “caught up in the criminal justice system” they have a better chance of escaping addiction and argues that evidence from other countries supports this view. And as legalising cannabis could create £3.5 billion in annual tax revenues, which would be used to fund enhanced drug rehabilitation and support networks, it is difficult to see how the present system of throwing addicts into prison for a few months where they rub shoulders with hardened criminals is a better system.

Noone but noone is suggesting that children should have access to cannabis, just as they should not have access to alcohol or cigarettes. But when marijuana is clearly safer than alcohol as a drug; when the free choice of nearly a third of UK adults is to use it; when the costs of prohibition are filling up prison cells and NHS waiting rooms with addicts we have failed; and when criminal gangs are benefitting from the market, it is clear that legalisation for over-18s is a sensible, rational move.

Liam McMahon can crow as much as he likes about the government foisting drugs on to children. It’s emotive and effective language, and that’s why he uses it: but it’s utterly disconnected from reality. Labour want to criminalise nearly a third of the population: the Conservatives want to make them safer. Being tough on crime does not mean using a sledgehammer when a nut cracker will do. What’s more important is to be smart in policymaking: smart on crime.

I’ll end this editorial with a confession, because it seems fitting. Yes, my friends, I have used cannabis. I didn’t use it regularly, or for long, and I haven’t touched it for many decades. But like 18 million of you, I smoked it. And as a rich white girl, I got away with it; would I have done as a young black man, or would I have been criminalised and barred from Parliament for possessing plant produce no more harmful than alcohol? I’ll let you think about that one.
Rt Hon. Ms Juliet Manning MP
Member of Parliament for Clwyd West

Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Lord President of the Council
Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Post Reply

Return to “The Papers”