Archive for October, 2010

Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

This blogpost is the last part of a four part series.

ScottishLiberalDemocratsNoEntry Stornoway Scotland 20100407 Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Liberal Democrat polling is at its worst for 13 years.

I have now devoted some 4000 words to why I have left the Liberal Democrats and how the coalition government is literally a matter of life and death for some people. The response I have had from my decision has been massive, but a significant part of it has been suggestions of other parties that I might be interested in joining. So I thought I would write a little bit on why I don’t think that is a good idea.

For all that I have said previously, I’m not going to say that there aren’t things I do quite like about the Coalition over their predecessors. The scrapping of the National Identity Register (though not for foreign nationals…). The scrapping of ContactPoint. Supporting the autonomy of home educators. Not spending £800 on a Christmas tree. Telling the EU to get stuffed when it asks for more money. That’s cool.

But do you remember the part where people are going to die…? Is a higher personal tax threshold really worth the increased poverty of millions? Please, coalition supporters, tell me how you can live with yourselves, because I am stumped. Would I give up my £700 a year to keep my friends with mental health issues on community support programmes and out of psychiatric wards, hospitals and graveyards? I’d give it up in seconds.

Many people have suggested that I join the Labour Party. Several of my friends have now done so in the wake of the election and the black-haired Mr. Milband taking the leadership. However, to those who seem to think that the Labour Party will save us all from the clutches of the scissor-wielding George Osborne, I can say only one thing: have you forgotten?

1333743 Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

A tank burns after a ambush in Iraq.

Have you forgotten Iraq, death of David Kelly, the millions of Iraqi dead, the protests of a million people ignored? Have you forgotten 90 day detention, 42 day detention, detention without trial, control orders, extraordinary rendition? The National Identity Register, the ContactPoint database, the Forward Intelligence Team, the Independant Safeguarding Authority, NHS spine? Tuition fees, academies, the slow but steady abolition of special schools? The expansion of prisons, prison sentences, and reactive legislation (Labour created one new offence a day, every day, for 13 years)? The privatisation of everything they could possibly justify, including health, transport, education, and the post office? The handover of sovereignty of Europe and refusal to hold a referendum that they promised us? The emphasis on political expediency over evidence-based policy (drug policy, introduction of “alternative therapies” on the NHS)? That whole deregulation of the banking sector thing?

Striking postmen at the Royal Mail Bowthorpe depot in 2009 Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

What has happened that no-one found it odd that the post office union had to strike under a Labour government in order to protect their jobs and prevent privatisation?

Have you forgotten just why Labour lost its majority? It’s because they did the Tories’ work for them. How can anyone tell me that Labour are the answer when they were the problem until May this year? Do you seriously believe that a man who has been at the heart of government since 1997 and who has a cabinet made up of people *responsible* for the creation and implementation of these policies are suddenly going to become lovely, fluffy social democrats without a war-mongering, authoritarian, privatising bone in their body? I don’t think so. People tell me to join the Labour Party – I can only reply that they have very, very short memories.

green party utah Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Hi! Vote green for fiscal irresponsibility based on middle-class outrage!

People who want me to join the Green Party, however, are assuming that what I am looking for is an even whiter, even more middle class organisation. But while I care about the environment, I’m not prepared to deal with “the welfare problem” by putting everyone on it, giving everyone in the country £5000 a year and shutting down all private alternatives to public services. Here be authoritarian paternalism… The Green Party’s major priority seems to be, not spreading their message or persuading others of their policies, but getting the voting system reformed so their party can get more people elected. Somehow, I find that rather suspect. And what is up with that banning stem stell research thing?

986B9666 A578 D4BB 3C8CEFF3BE0DDF03 Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Brian from the CPGB tries to explain why supporting war credits in Germany in 1914 is *crucial* to current revolutionary struggles...

I’m not joining any of the spectrum of the right wing parties on account of the fact that they are cheerleading on the kinds of policies that made me quit the Liberal Democrats in the first place. Been there, done that, sold out people worse off than myself. The left-wing parties I think are more thoughtful, but useless. I appreciate that socialists and communists are fundamentally concerned with human beings rather than money, but on the other hand I have far better things to do with my time than argue over the shades of theories of documents written in 1926 (you think I’m kidding…). No revolutionary system can be that detailed because no-one’s going to agree to implement it.

As for me, I think I am largely done with party politics now. But right now I’m pretty open-minded on where I go next, so feel free to leave a comment if you adhere to a brand of politics worth looking into. And by that, I mean one that doesn’t shrug at the potential death toll of thousands of people in favour of some vague idea of “fairness” that stops being meaningful the second you have the chance to do something about it.

See also:

Who’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

What’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

Who’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

Monday, October 25th, 2010

This blogpost is the third of a four part series, and the fourth part will be published tomorrow.

So, my friends, we established yesterday that the systems are going to be taking something of a hit as a result of coalition government. What about the people who depend on the state? What has the coalition government got in store for them?

By the way, I was going to cover students as well, but a) they aren’t at risk of death, tuition fees just piss me off and b), this article is long already. So it’s just the elderly and disabled being murdered today. But frankly, I think that’s horrendous enough really. See my analysis of the Browne Review on tuition fees if you are especially interested.

Who wants to support disabled people? Why can’t they just get a job?

Disablemarker Whos Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

A floor marker for people with disabilities.

People with severe impairments or disabilities are rarely able to live without government support. 3/4 of disabled people live below the poverty line (which is a meaningless statistic in reality given the way the poverty line is calculated but should give you some idea of how much disabled people are disadvantaged in society currently, let alone in the near future). Changes that affect disabled people specifically are:

“‘Time limiting contributory Employment Support Allowance for those in the Work Related Activity Group to one year. This is aimed to cut £2 billion a year by 2014-15.’

Disabled people will be subject to an arbitrary cut off point of a year. After that, whatever their circumstances, they will not get any ESA income. This will be in the context of sharply increasing unemployment and while entrenched discriminatory barriers to employment remain in place, and indeed will probably grow as a result of the overall impact of the government’s policy.

Nearly a million people may lose ESA worth £91.40 a week as a result.”

Now, maybe you think that £90 is pretty high, but it’s really not if you have personal assistants to pay for and extra travel costs. Worse:

“This change will apply side by side with the government’s reassessment of all Incapacity Benefit/ESA claimants. People ‘assessed as fully capable for work will be moved onto Jobseekers’ Allowance.”

Now, what they actually mean by “assessing” people is that they won’t trust your doctor anymore to assess themselves, but make you turn up on a specific day to see an assessor specially trained to certify as many people as non-disabled as possible. So if you have crippling arthritis which comes and goes, but which makes it impossible to hold down a job for the long-term, and your assessment date falls on a day when you can walk and open doors, the government will not be sympathetic. If you have blinding, searing headaches that make it impossible to concentrate for more than a few hours, they will not know nor care. This isn’t being a doomsday preaching, by the way, it’s what happens now:

“the ESA assessment process itself has been strongly criticised as being overly harsh and very badly designed. Many people are being wrongly denied ESA entirely or placed in the ‘work related activity’ group. This includes people receiving chemotherapy, whom the government claims are protected by guidelines.” Link.

Yes, people receiving chemotherapy are “fit for work”. I have, in fact, had an argument with someone who seriously argued that people with non-terminal cancer receiving chemotherapy are perfectly fit to work independantly. He was, unsurprisingly, a member of the Conservative Party. I’m glad he made an allowance for people with terminal cancer.

Moving on from work, what about disabled people who can’t work at all? What are they up to? Have a story:

“”Page 69 of the spending review explains that because of “the urgent need to tackle the culture of welfare dependency”, people in residential care will lose the mobility component of the disability living allowance in 18 months time.

My mother-in-law, Margaret, is 87 and had polio in 1953. She served as a Wren in the war and brought up her family from a wheelchair. She and my father-in-law worked tirelessly for the British Polio Fellowship. She moved in with us when she was widowed 23 years ago and was grittily determined to remain at home as long as possible. But her disability caught up with her and a year ago she had to move into a nursing home.

The one thing that has made this bearable for us all is that the mobility component of the DLA enables her to lease a wheelchair-adapted vehicle through the Motability scheme. So she can come home and join her family for lunch, can be taken on holiday or to the shops, to weddings and funerals, to celebrations and special occasions. She has been able remain part of the community and at the heart of her family. Without this specially adapted vehicle, she cannot travel.

If she loses her mobility allowance, her car goes with it and she will be stranded in the nursing home. This will have a catastrophic effect on the quality of her life, quite out of proportion with the amount of money it will save the country.” Link

Honestly, this doesn’t even begin to cover the many ways the disabled population is about to be penalised for being disabled. If these cuts go through, thousands of people who currently claim disability support from the government are going to be stranded. Some will be prevented from working at all, others will be trapped in their own homes unable to leave. Some will die. What does Inclusion London have to say about this?

“We reject George Osborne’s claim that these cuts are either fair or unavoidable. The spending plans represent a choice: a choice to make disabled people and others who are among the poorest in society, already facing enormous discrimination and inequality, pay for an approach to deficit reduction which is riddled with the risk of creating a double dip recession.”

Yeah, biatch.

Hey, elderly frail people! Get a job!

Elderly Couple   Brasov   Romania Whos Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

An elderly couple. In Romania.

As people get older, our bodies age so that we find it harder to move about. It becomes harder to judge distances, to react quickly to danger, and to recover from illness and injury. I’m 21 years old and I know this. The government, despite being run by older white men considerably closer to death than I, does not, it would seem:

“[The Comprehensive Spending Review] calls into question the ability of councils to deliver simpler and relatively inexpensive interventions – a grab rail in a bathroom, for instance – that can make the difference between an elderly person continuing to live independently or falling and ending up in a care home.

In fact, social care generally is being cut by 30% over the next three years. Even the government’s usual suggestion of charging people is redundant here (even if people could pay):

“On the level of charges, average means-tested rates for home care are already of the order of £8-£10 an hour. Some councils are contemplating increases of as much as 50% in the hourly rate and/or the maximum weekly payment. But the hard truth is that a 40% cut in funding would be almost £6bn: at present, social care charges of all kinds bring in a total £2.2bn.”

Of course, you could just not provide home care for the elderly. Charities and families will fill the gap, won’t they? Elderly people will be fine. The government will save money, won’t it? That’s all it’s really about, isn’t it? Isn’t it?

“We recognise that councils are between a rock and a hard place,” said Stephen Burke, chief executive of Counsel and Care, which specialises in information and advice for elderly people and their carers. “But cutting access to care and supporting fewer older people will only cost more in the long run. Older people will be left to struggle on their own and more will end up being admitted to expensive and often inappropriate hospital and residential care.”

“This will be the key. With up to 40% of elderly people in hospital beds placed there unnecessarily, and as many as 70% staying too long, there is a huge incentive for the NHS to use its supposedly protected funds to help out social care in its hour of need.” Link

Duly costing the government a fortune in care for the people who make it to the hospital, and costing numerous elderly people their lives and their dignity as their support is withdrawn and they are left to fend for themselves. What do you do if you can’t get out of bed yourself? What do you do if your arthritis is so bad you can’t call for help? This is so obvious and so dangerous (and expensive) it seems hard to believe that no-one in the government stopped to think about it.

Finally, have you ever wondered why the government keeps saying that the cuts are progressive? What are they basing that on?

“The BBC’s Stephanie Flanders points out that the government’s analysis ‘excludes a third of the benefit changes planned by the government and does not go up to 2014-15. The changes excluded by this are clearly regressive – they have the greatest effect, relative to income, on people at the lower end of the income scale.” Link.

…sneaky. One does wonder if fiddling the statistics is how Nick Clegg comforts himself at night.

Several people have argued to me that the best response to the coalition government is to join the Labour Party. Tomorrow’s post will therefore point why that’s a short-sighted idea. Join me then. Don’t join the Labour Party. :)

See also:

Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Who’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

What’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

What’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

Monday, October 25th, 2010

This blogpost is the second of a four part series, and the third part will be published tomorrow.

Many Liberal Democrats drunken on power seem to be getting all misty-eyed over an AV referendum and the pupil premium and entirely forgetting about things like, say, the cutting of social care for the elderly by 30%. Or the impending eviction of 200,000 people from London for the crime of being poor. Stuff like that. But hey, we might get same-sex marriage in a few years, that makes up for the kids who won’t be able to travel to sixth form anymore because their Educational Maintenance Allowance has been removed, won’t it?

Maybe you don’t believe me. Maybe you think that “efficiency savings” and “reining in reckless spending” will somehow cover the £952 billion pound deficit. And maybe that’s true, but that’s not what’s happening. Here’s (some of) what’s happening:

Goodbye social housing sector, hello cardboard box

 Whats Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

Homeless people asleep in corridor.

October 20th, 2010: “George Osborne announced that the housing budget for England would be cut from £8.4bn over the previous three-year period to £4.4bn over the next four years. The loss would be covered by new social housing tenants who face rental charges of up to 80% of market rates.

The average rent for a three-bedroom social home is about £85 a week, but the National Housing Federation warns this could triple to a “staggering” £250 a week. The federation, which represents English housing associations, said that the changes could lead to thousands of low-income families having to pay up to £9,000 a year more in rent.” Link.

Perhaps possible for some, but if you are living in London with higher rents to pay, a support network of friends, maybe even a low-paying job that just about keeps you fed and clothed? George Osborne would rather you just left, actually.

“Councils in the capital are warning that 82,000 families – more than 200,000 people – face losing their homes because private landlords, enjoying a healthy rental market buoyed by young professionals who cannot afford to buy, will not cut their rents to the level of caps imposed by ministers.

The National Housing Federation’s chief executive, David Orr, described the housing benefit cuts as “truly shocking”. He said: “Unless ministers urgently reconsider these punitive cuts, we could see more people sleeping rough than at any stage during the last 30 years.”

Hmm. People being made homeless with nowhere to go? Surely this is unfair?

“A DWP spokesperson said: “The current way that it [housing benefit] is administered is unfair. It’s not right that some families on benefits have been able to live in homes that most working families could not afford.”"

What? But what do you do if you can’t find a job in an era of rising employment, with nearly 500,000 people shortly to be made redundant from the public sector?

“The controversy follows comment last week by Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, who said the unemployed should “get on the bus” and look for work.”Link.

…wtf? So if you can’t afford to live next to your job, or you can’t pay your rent so you have even somewhere to live where you can look for a job, you should just… get a job? Can we see something a bit wrong there? And how are people even supposed to pay for the bloody bus without having a home or money?

Rough sleeping%2C Tottenham High Road Whats Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2Homeless person sleeps in a doorway.

The coalition government’s argument is that by refusing to flood the market with taxpayers’ money, the cost of rents will naturally fall because people who are near destitute won’t be able to pay their rent anymore. The problem is, there isn’t any shortage of demand in areas, such as London, where people actually want to live. Those also happen to be where most jobs are located as well, so people dependent on housing benefit are doubly screwed. The reality is that landlords with a choice between reducing their rents to accommodate the new changes, or evicting their tenants unable to pay to replace them with young urban professionals who desperately want to move out from their parents’, are not going to go for the cheaper option. That’s just capitalism in action.

There are going to be a lot of people made homeless because of this near-sighted policy. In fact, have tons of facts on homelessness. Being homeless is dangerous – you are at greater risk of physical attack, illness, malnutrition, not to mention the physical risk of freezing to death and contracting disease from unsanitary conditions if you are actually on the streets themselves. Then there’s the mental risk of stress, worry, fear, and uncertainty as you have no idea how you are going to survive another day. And that’s if you’re single. I dread to think what is going to happen to families. As Shelter put it, “Protecting NHS spending and education while introducing policies that will see more children living in damp and overcrowded conditions simply does not add up.”

If this cut in housing benefit goes through, people are going to die, the only question is how many, and how many children will end up in care when their parents can’t cope anymore, and how many will enter mental health services because of the pressure they are under and the indignities they face. And the Lib Dems are going to vote it through and claim it’s fair?

Jobs, jobs, jobs… but not for lawyers

The Old Bailey%2C London   geograph.org.uk   3319 Whats Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

The Old Bailey criminal court in London.

Legal aid! That thing that most of us will never use and is just there to enrich fat lawyers trying to help immigrants into the country, right? If you want to believe the Daily Mail, lol. Here’s a story:

“20-year-old called Danni … had lost his job as an apprentice joiner in the recession. He was wrongly told that he could not claim housing benefit to help pay his rent, and found himself in court as the council tried to repossess his council flat.

Danni, who like most people had no knowledge of legal proceedings or civil law, faced the daunting prospect of representing himself in court and being made homeless. He was saved by a lawyer from the centre called Niki Goss, an amazing and vastly experienced man who has spent his career taking on this kind of case, for which he earns less than the average primary school teacher. Goss, funded by a legal aid scheme that enabled him to be on duty in court that day, persuaded the judge to oversee a compromise with the council so that Danni could remain in his accommodation.” Link.

Legal aid helps people who can’t afford their own representation and who are facing bankruptcy, prison, deportation, and homelessness to avoid any of those fates. It levels the playing field and means everyone in the country can get legal representation irrespective of their ability to pay so the courts aren’t just a rich man’s game. Sounds like a good, fair way of ensuring equal access to the law, right? Who could argue with that?

“[Justice Secretary Ken] Clarke said [on the 21st October, 2010]: “Our legal aid system is almost the most expensive in the world. Our proposals will look to reduce legal aid and related spend by around 16 per cent and it will still be one of the most expensive systems by far in the world.

“We want to do this by focusing funding on those who need it most and on those cases that require it. That will mean difficult choices on less priority areas, and on the ways in which lawyers are paid.”

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: “The severe cuts to legal aid, both criminal and civil, will mean some individuals will have minimal or no representation in court.” Link.

…huh. But I guess that if we just gave free legal advice to everyone who needed it we’d bankrupt the country?

“The Law Centres Federation estimates that the average cost to the taxpayer of evicting people like Danni is £34,000. The service provided by Goss that day and subsequent court hearings costs less than £1,000. Providing vulnerable people with legal representation saves money down the line.”

Ah. Right. So legal aid is cost-effective a lot of cases. But not as cost-effective as just getting people to work for free!

CommonGroundDavisPkwyMay07 Whats Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2Most legal aid is provided by small offices with few resources.

“One idea that has proved popular among Tories is the idea that lawyers should do more work for free. Pro bono legal advice and representation, senior Conservatives have argued, are an important part of a lawyer’s civic duty. Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister in charge of legal aid, has even suggested that it would be a good way of keeping busy women who wanted to return to work from maternity leave.

“Pro bono can be a good filler for those lawyers out of work, or women who want to get back into the legal job market after having children,” Djanogly said at a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference.”

Ignoring the blatant sexism and patriarchy contained in this statement, surely in the big society we need to help our fellows, to “do our bit”. Isn’t Djanogly’s call to pro bono work a good thing?

“To a disproportionate extent [legal aid lawyers] are made up of people working in small high street firms, women, and ethnic-minority lawyers. The idea that they should work for free is neither sustainable nor fair. If the taxpayer cannot stomach paying lawyers to represent people who cannot afford to pay for themselves, then the supply of legal representation will dry up.” Link.

So cutting legal aid will disproportionately affect local solicitors, women, and ethnic minorities. It’ll leave thousands of poor and destitute people without legal representation at the mercy of the wealthy, councils and government departments who can afford to throw bottomless amounts of cash at lawyers to do their utmost to ruin the lives of people who can’t fight back, by bankrupting them, by breaking up their families, by giving them criminal records, and by making them homeless. It will result in the deportation of thousands of asylum seekers to countries where they may be tortured or killed, because that’s “what’s right for the country”. Right, yeah.

That change that works for you?

Tomorrow in “Who’s Affected by the Cuts?”, we’ll be looking at the elderly, disabled people, and students. Join me then. Don’t join the Liberal Democrats.

See also:

Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Who’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

What’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Monday, October 25th, 2010

This blogpost is the first of a four part series, and the second part will be published tomorrow.

Further to my rage-fuelled spontaneous combustion last week, I thought I would write a somewhat more thought-out explanation as to why I was planning to leave the Liberal Democrats even before I was so offended by the insinuations that one of my friends quit the party over personal issues rather than politics. The reason I was so offended was not necessarily that one of my friends was insulted, although I was annoyed by that, but because the means by which the Liberal Democrats intend to ruin people’s lives and end not a few of them is SO FRICKING OBVIOUS, it defies belief that anyone could suggest that someone upset by the scale of destruction about to be unleashed is evidently just using the cuts as an excuse for something else. What an inverted pyramid of piffle (Boris Johnson being far more polite than me).

Now, I’m not one of those far lefties who live in some sort of dreamworld where cuts never need to happen, tube cleaners should be paid £3000 a week and the front-bench should be made up solely of women for the next thousand years to make up for patriarchy. We do have a deficit, we are paying £120 million a day to pay for it, and something does need to be done. What I do fail to understand, however, is why exactly the deficit needs to be reduced at the expense of the sick, elderly, young, disabled, and seemingly anyone who needs government assistance to get by.

 Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister

Because it won’t be Nick Clegg who won’t be able to send his kids to school because they can’t afford to pay for the bus. And it won’t be Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has to choose between food and heating after having to pay his increased rents because of cuts to social housing. It won’t be Chris Huhne, the climate change minister, who sits at home in his own urine because he can’t afford to pay for a personal assistant when he needs it.

Note that I used Liberal Democrats as my examples there. I’m not surprised in the slightest that the Tories are bringing in such changes, because that’s what they do, and I’ve never known a Tory besides myself who had the slightest understanding that people on benefits are there because they need help to survive; and I promptly quit when I realised that Tories don’t quite live on the same planet as the rest of us.

But I joined the Liberal Democrats because I read their tax policy (I’m not kidding) and I thought it was great, I thought it was fair, and I thought it was a vast improvement on the excessively complicated system Gordon Brown had brought in to exercise his brain. I believe in human rights, civil liberties, and a “fair, free and open society… in which no-one will be enslaved by poverty, ignorance, or conformity”. That’s the preamble to the Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution, and it’s a cool statement. I believed in that. I still believe in that. But because I believe in that, I can’t be a Liberal Democrat. And I honestly don’t understand why anyone else who believes in that could keep up their membership either.

6a00d83451b31c69e201347ff3b143970c 500wi Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Who's defending the less well off now, Mr. Hughes?

Out of the six of my friendship group who joined the Liberal Democrats from March last year, I am the last to leave. While speaking to people who have remained members about why they’ve chosen to stay, there are two main responses. One is “yes, I am absolutely horrified, but the Liberal Democrats are staving off the worst of it, surely we need to stay and try to fend off what we can?” I could subscribe to that view, if that was what was happening. But did those of you who believe that miss Nick Clegg and Vince Cable overriding party policy and approved increasing the debts of students by tens of thousands of pounds? Just how much worse could it have been under the Tories? This coalition isn’t a battle between scissor-happy Tories vs. plucky Liberal Democrats salvaging what they can – they’re both at it, and they’re going to cause massive, irreversable, potentially deadly, hardship to millions and millions of people.

The second response is “OMG, yay, we’re in government, isn’t this amazing!! What do you mean, hitting the poorest hardest? How much Liberal Democrat policy have we passed since we’ve been in government? How much would we have passed in opposition? We’re doing our bit. Yay government, we’re in government, woohoo! This is so cool!” I don’t like these people. Unfortunately they’re generally elected officials.

vince cable415 Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Mr. Cable, I believe your pants are on fire.

The thing is, I like a smaller state. I like “cutting waste”, I like the bonfire of the quangos and I like lowering taxation where possible. The Liberal Democrats like that too, that’s why I joined them. The part where we start to diverge is when the Liberal Democrats now seem to define waste as “poor people”. And I can’t be a part of that.

But what exactly am I talking about? This blogpost is entitled “Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People”, but when I started to write it, it rapidly became several thousand words long. I have therefore broken it down into four parts. This introductory blogpost, has, I hope, established why I have left the party for ideological rather than personal reasons. The next two parts, “What’s Affected by the Cuts?” and “Who’s Affected by the Cuts?” will explain to people who might not be aware, especially those Liberal Democrats who continue to support the coalition government, exactly why people’s lives are in danger because of the Liberal Democrat supported-Coalition Programme. And finally, “Other Parties Helped!” will cover why joining the Labour Party is a short-sighted response and why I’m not planning to join any other parties in the future. So join me tomorrow for more fury, and this time, some facts.

See also:

Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 4: Other Parties Helped Them!

Who’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 3

What’s Affected by the Cuts?: Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 2

Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

5138659695 451ba5a5a2 Death to the Liberal Democrats! Or, Why the Coalition is Going to Kill People Part 1

Nick Clegg wants us to know he cares.

Related Posts:

Letter regarding my resignation from the Liberal Democrats

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

Sent to the DELGA (the LGBT Liberal Democrat group) mailing list in response to an appalling email from a current member of the Executive following the principled resignation of a colleague. I will make no claim that this is well-written or well-referenced.

Dear all,

I was waiting it out with regard to the Comprehensive Spending Review, but after reading Dave’s disgusting, partisan, and utterly unacceptable jibe at Ollie, I am hereby resigning immediately from DELGA and the Liberal Democrat Party. The fact that [redacted] is Ollie’s partner is no way enhances or detracts from the fact that our university teaching budgets were just cut by 80%, our cornerstone pledge that every student should receive a free education was ripped up with glee, 100,000 people are about to be forced to move out of London because they cannot pay the rents, legal aid has been REMOVED for housing and family cases, Disabled Living Allowance is being denied to many people with mental health problems, social care for the elderly has been cut by 30% – do you think that people too frail to leave their beds will just learn to care for themselves?

I joined this party because I believe that we should “build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” I still believe in that and that is why I must quit. We have betrayed those values, we have betrayed those who voted for us, and we have betrayed our own membership by disregarding their horror at what is unfolding due to our connivance with a cuts programme which rivals Thatcher by deriding it as some sort of lovers’ tiff. Shame on you, Dave, and shame on every one of you who has shrugged their shoulders at the CSR and the hundreds of thousands of desperately poor people are who are now facing oblivion.

The Liberal Democrat Party are in the process of making our country more unsafe, more racist, more unfair, and more hypocritical. Access to health, education, housing and justice has been curtailed and people will die as a result. I hope you can live with that, because I certainly can’t. Goodbye.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah McCulloch

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

What is the Purpose of Drug Policy? Some Data (and Some Analysis!)

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

Last week, I was at Lancaster University to help give a talk on drug policy to a group of third year criminology students taught by Fiona Measham. One of the things that we did was to hand out pieces of paper and ask the lecture theatre if they could define the purpose of drug policy. The responses we got were broad and revealing, I feel.

There were two main responses, which were evenly matched in numbers. The first was “the purpose of drug policy is to prevent harm”, which is excellent. The whole raison d’etre of Re:Vision Drug Policy Network is of course to promote harm reduction as the main purpose of drug policy, so it is good to know that there’s a receptive audience already out there on campuses.

The second main response, however, “the purpose of drug policy is to prevent harm, so they should be banned to keep people away from drugs.” Obviously I totally agree with the first part of that statement. But the corollary is what is assumed by mainstream public discourse to be the logical next step – and that just doesn’t follow. What is a law? It’s a socially accepted convention that we obey that regulates our community. Banning a drug doesn’t stop anyone taking them, any more than banning murder prevents people killing other people. However, we ban murder to prevent harm to others and we enforce these laws; supposedly we ban drugs to prevent harm to ourselves. It’s important to remember that just by saying something is illegal doesn’t stop people doing it – if they weren’t doing it there wouldn’t be a law against it (there’s no law against dragon-hunting, for example). But everybody’s crime is nobody’s crime: up to a third of the UK population have taken an illegal substance. Is it it really a workable law when so many people are taking drugs (up to one million people take MDMA every week) and are neither punished, nor harmed (so 52 million MDMA trips, 10 deaths – it really is safer for you than horse-riding)? One has therefore to consider what harms are done by drugs and whether those harms are reduced by the fact that drugs are criminalised or not. I won’t go into the details here, but The Transform Drug Policy Foundation has an extensive briefing vault demonstrating that the dangers of drugs are enhanced by prohibition rather than helped, through associated violence, health implications, and the fact that people in trouble won’t engage with public services because they’re afraid of being arrested. Drugs can be dangerous, but so can sky-diving. We don’t ban sky-diving, we regulate it. Maybe we should do the same with drugs.

Another big response was that the purpose of drug policy was “to inform people about drugs and enable them to make their own choices” and “to encourage people to use drugs sensibly, including alcohol”. Clearly a lot of people were very concerned about the government’s role in educating people about drugs. It’s an interesting point, because the government does run education campaigns now, but which are rarely focussed on giving people information about drugs instead of trying to scare people entirely (Talk to Frank being a good example of this). Given the success of some public information campaigns in the past (everyone knows about their five-a-day), it is clear that the government could play a much bigger role. An unanswered question that remains from this particular response, is if illegal drugs should remain criminalised if people are being left to make their own informed choices.

A significant number of people also wrote simply that the purpose of drug policy was “to control drugs”. That’s a pretty loaded statement: how do you control drugs? What drugs do you control (e.g. why is aspirin legal and LSD isn’t?) What are your criteria for controlling them? How do you enforce those decisions? Controlling drugs isn’t so much a purpose as such, more a method by which the purpose of drug policy can be carried out. You can control drugs by banning them completely, or making them available in Boots; legalisation is as much a method of controlling drugs as criminalising their use. People who wrote this should really think about what they meant by that.

There were some interesting individual responses as well. Many thanks to the person who told us that the purpose of drug policy was “hello”, but a non-alcoholic beverage to the student who wrote that the purpose of drug policy is “to keep us safe“. I couldn’t agree more. Another student in the same vein wrote that we should “prevent overdosing by illegalising more drugs”: it is sadly a fact that most overdoses are a direct result of drugs being prohibited, because criminals cut the drugs they sell with anything from talcum powder to concrete dust, and purity levels vary so widely it’s impossible to be sure what you’re taking and whether it is safe or not.

Someone also wrote that the purpose of drug policy is to “prevent criminal activity” – I’m not sure what was meant by that. If they meant “prevent people from taking drugs”, then given that heroin use has risen by 1000% since it was banned in 1971, I can only suggest that’s a futile hope. If by criminal activity, they meant all the gang activity, violence, homicide and trafficking that goes on, that’s easy to end: just control and regulate all drugs, legally. In the 1930s, America tried to ban alcohol, and the mafia was born. When alcohol was finally legalised twenty years later, the mafia lost much of their income and influence overnight. Regulation deals with criminal activity, full stop.

There were also some response that I can only describe as, “interesting”. One person wrote that by reducing illegal drug use, we could “stop unemployment”. I fear the student who wrote that the purpose of drug policy was “to control society’s view and attitude towards drugs” has a future as a spin-doctor ahead of them. An interesting perspective came from a student who called for alcohol to be banned entirely because of its association with violent crime; I suppose it is a consistent view at least. And finally, one student said that the purpose of drug policy was “to protect people and ensure that other services such as the NHS aren’t overcrowded unnecessarily.” A true citizen. :)

The session produced some interesting discussion afterwards and I really enjoyed it. I think that what has really come out of this though is that even with a class there is a massive range of opinions that simply aren’t being heard or considered by those in charge of actually writing and setting our drug policy. It really is time to have that discussion.

Further Reading

* Transform Drug Policy Foundation
* In 2001, Portugal decriminalised all drugs for personal use. The Cato Institute, an American think-tank, produced a report in 2007 that discovered that health problems in Portugal relating to drug use had actually fallen. Read it here.

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

Some Thoughts on the Browne Review: Free Education is Still Possible, You Know.

Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

The Browne review on Higher Education, which was published today and you can read a summary of here, has generated some very gloomy headlines. Not from the Sun, who haven’t covered the Browne review at all, and have chosen to go with a expose on the working conditions of lap-dancers at Stringfellows, but most other papers are marking the end of the publicly funded degree, the saddling of students with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they even begin their working life, and the potential inequality of “elite” (i.e. Oxbridge) charging far more for their degrees than the likes of former polytechnics like Anglia Ruskin.

Actually, “Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education”, as the full report is actually entitled, is rather well developed. The removal of the cap on the amount an institution can charge for courses entirely is pretty devastating for anyone who’s ever dreamed of being debt-free, but if you agree to the premise of paying for education, what’s the difference between paying back £21,000 over 25 years and £30,000 over 30? The threshold at which you start to pay back your tuition fees will be raised to £21,000 a year – given the average wage in the country is £22-24,000 a year that means that most poor students who go to university will in effect get a free education. The support universities receive from the government will taper off as they charge more than £6000, effectively disincentivising all but the most successful universities from charging more than this (Oxford graduates are screwed, in other words, but at least it means that we will one day have a Prime Minister who will probably still be paying off their student loan while in office). The report says, “Our recommendations place more of the burden of funding on graduates, but they contribute only when they can afford to repay the costs financed. Students do not pay charges, only graduates do; and then only if they are successful. The system of payments is highly progressive.” For a government that is about to force 250,000 people to leave London by cutting housing benefit, that’s quite good.

The Browne review also spent some time explaining why the concept of a graduate tax is stupid, unequal, unfair and generally a child only NUS paperpushers who received a free education because they graduated in 2006 could love. Pg 52 of the report sums it up best:

“…even low earning graduates would have to pay a graduate tax. In our proposals, graduates pay nothing until they are earning above £21,000 per year. A graduate tax may begin at the income tax threshold, which is £6,475. Higher earning graduates would be required to pay several multiples of the actual costs of their course. Modelling suggests that a 3% graduate tax over the first 25 years after graduation would result in the highest earning graduates paying ca. £55k (the bulk of three-year courses cost in the range of £18k-£21k). Graduates will keep paying for as long as they are earning above the income tax threshold. In addition to this, most graduates will also repay debt incurred for living costs while studying.”

So basically, the NUS has been actively arguing for graduates who are successful, regardless of whether this success was related to their degree or not, should be paying the equivalent of £18000 a year fees anyway. Thanks for that, NUS. I will grant that the NUS Blueprint, a summary of which is available here, does argue for a threshold of £15,000 before the tax is imposed, and a maximum length of 20 years of repayment, but artificial limits (also known as “safeguards”, “red lines”, “sweeteners”, or “inadequate sops to get the otherwise skeptical masses to agree with you”), as the Browne review itself has today demonstrated, are oh-so-easily raised or removed by another decision later on. The NUS Blueprint, in essence, isn’t worth the pixels it’s displayed on. Lord Browne also points out that a graduate tax would take 25 years to implement, with the government picking up the costs in the meantime through the student finance system, which fails totally to deal with the funding hole in education anyway.

One thing that really did need reviewing was government support for those enrolling on part-time degrees. The drop-out rate increases in part-time education the lower the intensity of the course, which means the amount of time you spend on the course a week (presumably because people don’t take it seriously, though this was not explained in the report). Because students who drop out would never have to repay their student loans under the new system, Lord Browne recommends that finance for part-time higher education begins for courses at a third of the intensity level for a full-time degree (so, two contact hours a week? Lol). It’s an innovative idea, and I’m not sure how that would work out in practice, but it is really good news for part-time students, particularly those who might be part-time because of disability or caring responsibilities and who can’t pay for courses upfront.

Overall the Browne review is pretty thorough, costed, and well-written – but only if you believe education has to be paid for by its recipient. Only the most hardcore capitalists of the Tory party would argue for an end to universal free primary and secondary education, but everyone seems to buy into the premise that tertiary education is somehow different. What is the difference? Higher and further education and apprenticeships benefit the individual and also the communities in which they live. Why do we try to inculcate a love of learning for its own sake at school and then commoditise it at college? From a more mercenary perspective, is it not a good idea to equip student with skills they can use in the workplace?

In 2006, the government was spending £6.5 billion a year on subsidising higher education.[1] To go back to a system of free education up to masters level for a first degree, the government would need to find an extra £3 billion a year (c.f. the Browne report itself, pg 51). Perhaps this seems a large number but I can only ask: is that IT? £10 billion was conjured up for the recently cancelled National Identity Register and Identity Card Scheme. Philip Green announced yesterday that we could save £20 billion on renegotiating supply contracts with government departments. Perhaps if we stopped building prisons and jailing ever more people at a cost of £31,000 a year to the taxpayer,[2] we could send kids to uni for only £21,000 a year. The money is there, if only we had the will to find it.

My Facebook feed is filled with people outraged at the suggestion that fees be uncapped and the average charge will go up to £6000 a year – but I honestly can’t see what the difference is between struggling with a debt of £3000 a year or a fee of £6000 a year if you’re paying it off at 9% of salary a year regardless. No-one is realistically going to notice the difference over their lifetime unless they keep really good accounts – which is of course why the original tuition fees were only £1000, then raised, then raised further, so that at every step of the way people got used to having to pay for what was once free to all. The NUS is whining about the debts graduates will face in 2015, but what about the debts that students graduating in 2011 will face? We lost the argument when fees were imposed, but instead of continuing to make the case for a consistent policy of free education up to a first undergraduate degree (which Australian students managed to achieve in 1974), we’re just quietly asking the government not to charge us as much. That’s pathetic, and it’s unsurprising that the government didn’t listen.

So I will be at the London demonstration on the 10th November, but you shouldn’t kid yourselves that it will achieve anything tangible as long as we ask for a slightly less heavy debt burden instead of demanding it be removed altogether.

* Securing a Sustainable Future for High Education – the full Browne Report.
* NUS Blueprint of Stupidity.

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

1784: The Year Prohibition Ended

Monday, October 11th, 2010

TeaCaddyMahogany1790s 1784: The Year Prohibition Ended

In the late seventeenth century, a new substance was brought back from the edges of the British empire. Sociable, pleasant and healthier than tobacco, it spread first among the aristocracy, but eventually became popular with the masses, to such an extent that, although the government tried to stamp out its consumption, a massive international smuggling operation grew up around it, importing several million pounds of the stuff to supply the demands of the great British public. Only in 1784, after criminal gangs had set up their bloody fiefdoms to run rings around the government, did Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger relent and institute a proper system of control and regulation that made supplies cheap, pure and accessible to all.

I refer, of course, to tea. Many of you were probably thinking of opium, but the major smuggling network of the eighteenth century in England was centred around tea. Why? Because it was difficult to get hold of legally. Starting from 1689, high taxes were imposed on tea, starting at 25 pence in the pound and eventually reaching 119 pence. It was a bad move for the government, not least because it led to the American Revolution (the Boston Tea Party being a revolt against the high taxation of tea). But it also led to a shrinking of the market in legal tea as vendors used the illicit tea trade to offset their losses by buying illegal tea and selling it on the legal market – because tea largely looks like tea, whether taxed or not.

Gunsgreen House   geograph.org.uk   212238 1784: The Year Prohibition Ended

Up until the 1760s, the main dealers in illegal tea were small-time vendors, supplying small amounts with help of sympathetic local residents. Britain did a rather nice line in smuggling, which was a significant industry in rural England for nearly 200 hundred years in order to evade the high excise taxes imposed by a government fighting highly expensive wars against, well, everyone. Tea was added to the list of products that everyone wanted, including wool, alcohol and tobacco, but which few were able to afford. The fact that tea had to be smuggled in from the coasts also meant that the more rural population of the UK was introduced to what had hitherto been a cosmopolitan aspiration.

It is interesting to note that for twenty years prior to the smuggling explosion, the existence of tax-free tea had little effect on the legal trade. It was only as customs imposed higher and higher taxes that people began to look elsewhere for their tea. One might consider that tobacco is in something of the same boat today.

Where there is a criminal element, there is violence. As early as 1747 the Hawkeshurst gang in Poole attacked a customs house killing the customs officials and taking back the tea that had been confiscated from them. By the 1770s, however, the trade had expanded dramatically, and less scrupulous “investors” had discovered the lucrative illegal tea trade. Heavily armed ships carrying tax-free tea and spirits began to appear off British coasts. Indeed, “the illicit tea trade had achieved a system unexampled in the checkered history of smuggling.” (Hoh-Cheung and Mui, pg 58.)

Smuggle1 1784: The Year Prohibition Ended

In 1784, the East India Company and the London tea traders, unable to compete with the black market, had had enough and petitioned Prime Minister Pitt to reduce the tax on tea. The Commutation Act 1784 was passed, reducing the tax on tea from 119% to just 12.5%. With legal tea suddenly much more affordable, and quality much higher, the smuggling trade was virtually stopped overnight.

I’m sure you can see what I am getting at here. What the effective Prohibition of tea in the eighteenth century can teach us today is that if people want to consume a drug, it will be supplied. Even if that drug is legal, but authorities seek to make it unavailable, resourceful citizens will find a way. One wonders what will happen if Manchester City Council has its way and introduces minimum alcohol pricing – because I’m willing to bet on enterprising syndicates, of both local neighbourhood and criminal gang types, getting together to avoid the charge.

However, the history of the illicit tea trade is not entirely ominous. Hoh-Cheung and Mui argue, “What appeared from the viewpoint of the law to be frauds, abuses, and evasions, might also be regarded as innovations promoting the international and domestic trade of the kingdom, which, in turn, contributed to the growth of the British economy in the latter part of the eighteenth century.” But how much of that growth did the taxman see? Eventually the government woke up to the fact that people wanted to drink tea but weren’t prepared to pay through the nose for it. In 1784, the Prohibition of tea ended – how much longer until the current government realises you can’t legislate drugs out of existence?

5010218990 893581d834 1784: The Year Prohibition Ended

For further reading on the illicit tea trade, try reading Smuggling and the British Tea Trade before 1784 by Hoh-Cheung and Lorna H. Mui.

Or visit the UK Tea Council, who have lots of interesting information on the history of tea.

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

“The Chemists are Winning”: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Originally written for Student Direct.

In April 2010, after a media storm, the British government passed legislation to classify mephedrone as a Class B drug. Mephedrone is a stimulant somewhat similar in effects to MDMA and cocaine, and is chemically based on cathinones found in the African stimulant Khat, but which was sufficiently chemically different to not have been previously included under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which regulated drugs in the UK. The drug was actually first synthesised in 1929, but rediscovered in 2003 by chemists looking to manufacture a “designer drug” that could get round existing drugs legislation.

Mephedrone 2D skeletal The Chemists are Winning: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

Chemical Structure of Mephedrone

Mephedrone first started hitting the news in late 2009, but the scare-mongering grew and by early 2010, the papers were full of tales of people who had allegedly become addicted to the drug, with The Sun even publishing a story detailing how a man had ripped off his own scrotum under the influence of mephedrone (which later turned out to have been an internet hoax taken seriously). The General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers called for a ban after two teenagers in Scunthorpe died after allegedly taking the drug. After the ban, the coroners’ report for the two discovered that neither had taken mephedrone and they had, in fact, been out drinking alcohol the night they died, and subsequent studies have determined that, of the dozens of deaths “linked” to mephedrone worldwide, only two have ever been conclusively proven to have actually involved mephedrone as a cause of death – but the media wasn’t going to let facts get in the way of a campaign against this “deadly killer”.

What with all free publicity for mephedrone and so many stories reporting how fun and cheap it was, use soared. It suddenly became very hard to not buy mephedrone. One Students for Sensible Drug Policy activist visited a headshop in three different occasions in the first half of 2010 and was offered “Meow-meow” every time, whether she was looking for stimulants, psychedelics or even just rolling papers. Mephedrone was available at every house party and headshop and accessible from just about any house with an internet connection. You could buy anything up to 20 grammes at a time from online sellers, giving you a bulk buy price of £4 a gramme. Purity was high, and dosage cheap. However in April 2010, despite the misgivings of several advisors of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, including its former chair, Professor David Nutt, who protested that mephedrone and its effects were unresearched and a much longer timeframe was needed to investigate it, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, made it illegal, claiming, “Mephedrone and its related substances have been shown to be dangerous and harmful”.

4mmc The Chemists are Winning: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

Impounded illegal mephedrone

Neil Harvey, a community sergeant in Exeter, welcomed the ban, saying: “Use of the drug has been on the increase locally, as well as nationally, and we are aware of young people using it and the consequences of that. We are also aware of how easy it is to buy from shops and once the ban is formalised they must immediately stop selling it or we will prosecute as soon as it becomes law. … The law is going to prevent young people coming to harm and that can only be a good thing. We are always concerned that something might come along to replace it and we would need to be quick dealing with that if it happens. We have been very lucky so far in Exeter that no-one has been killed. But it has been luck. It is not designed for human consumption and anyone using it is taking a big risk with their health and safety.”

After mephedrone was banned, use did indeed drop among recreational drug users. One said, “Mephedrone was alright, but its advantage was that it was legal and you didn’t have any of the difficulties of supply and waiting around on dealers that you get with MDMA or ketamine. People just turned up with it at house parties and were very open about it. I know a lot of my friends who weren’t comfortable with taking illegal drugs were thrilled to get an MDMA-like experience that was cheap as well. Now it’s illegal, they’ve all stopped. I’ve largely stopped taking it as well. MDMA is far better when you can get hold of it.”

You can, of course, still buy mephedrone in Manchester, though the price has gone up to £20 a gram from £10 when it was legal. However, purity has dropped significantly since control of the supply has shifted from people buying it off wholesalers on the internet and into the hands of people who have a financial incentive to cut it with anything from talcum powder to concrete dust. So you can still take mephedrone if you have the cash, it’s just now more dangerous. James Jackson, Education Officer for Manchester Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a UMSU society, said, “Most recreational drug users don’t stop taking drugs because they’re illegal or because they are potentially harmful. We have to accept this. But they do try to take substances that they know are safe or that are safer than other drugs available. People want to get high, they don’t want to die or end up in hospital. That the government has made mephedrone illegal has actually endangered the health of drug users, because now no-one really knows whether the the stuff being sold as mephedrone is actually the drug they wanted.”

1400553827 ab0daaec7d The Chemists are Winning: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

A leaf from a Sassafras tree.

People also forget why mephedrone suddenly became popular so quickly: more than the price, mephedrone’s perceived purity was much higher than other available street drugs and that appealed to users – no-one chooses to take worming powder, after all. Cocaine purity had fallen from 60% in 1999 to 22% in 2009; people were literally getting less bang for their buck. More significantly, 33 tonnes of sassafras oil, the precursor to MDMA and a vital ingredient, was seized in Cambodia in June 2008. It has been estimated that it could have been used to make 245 million doses of MDMA. Such tightening of controls on sassafras oil and other substances meant that purity tests in mid-2010 have revealed that virtually no pills seized by the police contain MDMA at all – and 20% of pills seized since 2009 contain mephedrone. Market forces drove people to mephedrone, and when the cost and the convenience became too high, people just moved onto something else.

Other drugs have been in the pipeline since the banning of mephedrone. NRG-1, or naphyrone, a stimulant chemically similar to mephedrone, was banned two months after mephedrone on the same grounds. “Ivory Wave” was the latest legal high to hit the headlines in August, though no-one’s really sure what it is. Producing intense euphoria but with a vicious comedown, some test samples have discovered MDPV, or methylenedioxypyrovalerone, a cathinone which was banned at the same time as mephedrone. Mephedrone itself was banned shortly after the well-publicised proscription of GBL, BZP and Spice last December. So with those out the way, we can just wait for the next legal high, and the next one, and the cycle of discovery-use-popularity-ban can continue.

 The Chemists are Winning: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

The only drug that will kill you if you follow the instructions.

Of course, in the excitement of talking about the dangers of mephedrone and Ivory Wave and the next deadly designer drug that will come along, people forget about the most lethal legal highs, simply because they are embedded into our culture: alcohol and tobacco. Tim Hollis, the serving Chief Constable of Humberside Police and chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ drugs committee is currently the most senior police officer to call for the decriminalisation of possession of drugs for personal use. His greatest concern, however, was not illegal drugs. “My personal belief in terms of sheer scale of harm is that one of the most dangerous drugs in this country is alcohol. Alcohol is a lawful drug. Likewise, nicotine is a lawful drug, but cigarettes can kill,” he said. “There is a wider debate on the impacts to our community about all aspects of drugs, of which illicit drugs are one modest part.” The facts bear Hollis out: 25,000 people are killed a year by alcohol-related illnesses, and 106,000 people from smoking. By contrast 3000 people a year die as a result of all illegal drugs combined, including 10 from ecstasy every year, and precisely none whatsoever from mephedrone, LSD, or even cannabis, the most widely used illegal drug in the UK. Despite strictly regulating advertising, taxation, and labelling, however, no government has sought to ban either alcohol or tobacco.

Guinness Toucan ad The Chemists are Winning: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

An advertising campaign for Guiness in the 1940s.

It seems likely that the endless government attempts to ban every drug that is sold for recreational use will continue to push users into more and more unknown, and therefore more dangerous, drugs. The research done on the more conventional street drugs, such as ecstasy and LSD, now fills whole libraries – more recent research is even starting to turn up medicinal uses for drugs that have previously been the exclusive remit of trippers. LSD, for example, was discovered in 2006 to be unexpectedly effective at curing cluster headaches, an condition where sufferers can have headaches painful and debilitating that some have committed suicide. It seems unlikely that LSD will be available on prescription anytime soon; however, through long study and, yes, usage, science has determined that LSD is safe and in some cases, useful. The same can not be said about mephedrone or any of the legal highs.

The race between amateur chemists to develop new designer drugs that exist just outside the law and the government to try to ban them without any understanding of their long-term effects and use has now been running for forty years – and the chemists are winning. But as recreational users are pushed more and more onto drugs about which we know less and less, a better question than “Who are the winners?” might be “Who are the losers?”

20drugs The Chemists are Winning: The Rise of Mephedrone and Legal Highs

A graph of relative harms of common drugs produced by Professor David Nutt.

News reports:

  • Cuts prompt police to call for debate on drugs and redirect resources
  • Ivory Wave: The new meow meow?
  • Banned mephedrone cleared of blame for two deaths
  • Ban on NRG-1 ‘legal high’ recommended by drug advisers
  • Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

    Related Posts: