Drugs

(This was previously posted here on June 7th 2011)

I believe all drugs should be legalised.

Not just decriminalised as in Portugal, where there's been a reduction in overall drug use, but full, out and out, legalisation.

Right, so now we know where we stand, let's continue!

Yes, drugs are harmful. Yes, drugs can be addictive. Yes, drugs can kill. I'm not disputing any of this, but replace 'drugs' for 'alcohol' and the same applies. As someone who's never taken a controlled substance (I've never even smoked!), and has no real desire to, it may seem strange that I strongly subscribe to this viewpoint, but it comes down to a question of choice. When I was teaching in the 2009-10 school year, trainee teachers were always told (it's in all the books too) to introduce 'choice' to children: "If you choose to misbehave, xwill be the consequence." being the prime example. Whilst it felt strange at first, eventually I realised that it's only what adults go through when making choices - if you choose to drink 14 pints you've a pretty good idea of what the outcome may be:

Seriously though, you know full well that setting out to binge drink is going to result in you being drunk, probably sick, and you may end up doing something you inherently regret when you wake up. You could get fired, assaulted, mugged, or you could end up having a fun night out with some friends and no hangover in the morning. In getting drunk you take a risk - similarly, with drugs. Different drugs have different strengths and effects - if you choose to take a drug, you must live with the consequences - if indeed there are any.

The argument that drugs are harmful to you, which means that they should be banned, is taken apart in the following video: 

Just because something is legal, does not mean everyone will seek to do it: smoking is legal, I choose not to. Alcohol is legal, many choose to abstain. The morals surrounding drug use will not disappear just because the government legalises it - the government shouldn't be telling us what to think, what to eat, what to drink, smoke or do. People who oppose drug use will not automatically develop a habit if drugs are legalised.

In legalising drugs, crime is guaranteed to come down: there'll be less people imprisoned for drug related offences, particularly amongst the black community (despite not being more/less likely to consume drugs, more black people are arrested on suspicion of drug offences), and everyone who would have been convicted would now not be.

Over at the Adam Smith Institute, Sam Bowman offers the following:

What might this reform look like? I was intrigued to read about Silk Road this morning, a sort of anonymous eBay for online drug sales. It uses eBay-style seller ratings to avoid scams like bad drugs being sent, or no drugs being sent at all after a payment. The site seems like a relatively cost-effective and safe way for people to buy drugs. Good.
If something similar to this could be legalized for the sale of certain drugs, then many of the fears that people have about drug legalization could be avoided. Let's keep street selling illegal, but let people buy them from licensed sellers online and only use them on private property. Ugly scenes of drug dealers on the streets, like in Lisbon where drugs are decriminalized but not legalized, would be avoided, but people who want to take drugs would still be able to do so in the privacy of their own homes.

As John Stuart Mill outlined in 1859:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

This is that if you choose to harm yourself, that is your choice: you choose to get drunk, you choose to smoke, you choose to use drugs, you choose to eat high-calorie foods everyday, you choose to climb mountains without a harness... The list is endless. Why is there such an issue over drugs? They are not unique in destroying lives, nor are they unique in being frowned upon. Instead, they are unique in being illegal. Indeed, perhaps usage of drugs would actually fall were they to be legalised as they are not seen as 'forbidden'. I remember when I was at school, 13-15 year olds would smoke because it was 'cool', then gradually stop when they hit 16, or 16-17 year olds would try and get into nightclubs on Friday and Saturday nights. The excitement of breaking the law, or the 'forbidden fruit' element was enough to entice them.

As well as all of this, the 'war' on drugs has failed: if people want to take drugs enough, they are able to find somewhere to access them. Surely it's better for safer drugs, which, if you so wished, you could tax (I don't subscribe to this, nor do I agree with tax on alcohol, food or tobacco)?

Banning drugs hasn't worked, much like the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920's-30s: it's time we stopped looking at the moral outrage, started looking at science and asked ourselves: who knows what is best for us: ourselves, or the government?

The Sainsbury's Roundabout (Chester)

Is a shambles, a farce, a gigantic mess of planning failure.

Never before has a bad idea turned out worse than anyone could have expected. Slicing and dicing a roundabout to make it resemble a hamburger to lessen the congestion hasn't worked, and will not work. A happy meal? No chance.

I've done some digging. It turns out that *somewhere* a Council representative, in discussions with the developer, authorised the roundabout.

To try and find the person responsible for the mess, I've put in a freedom of information request. I'll post an update when it's received, no later than December 21st.

Playing Politics with Economics

A letter sent to the Chester Chronicle & Standard:


I do wish Phil Tate (Labour activist & Council candidate) would stop trying to re-write history.

Last week he claimed that the 'Tory-led Government' (A contender for most childish political phrase of the century?) were trying to take credit for the 0.5% base interest rate that Labour installed in March 2009. Firstly, no Government can set the base rate since Labour gave the Bank of England independence. To suggest that Labour controlled an independent body does not portray the Labour Party in a positive light. Indeed, Labour's claim that the Tories are cutting the deficit too far and too fast is nonsense, particularly with reports coming through that there would only now be 3 years difference between Labour and Tory plans.

Similarly, Mr Mosley should not take great delight at the 0.5% interest rate. It is basic mathematics and economics that the lower the interest rate, the greater the borrowing, and in turn the more likely there is to be yet another credit fueled boom and bust. Moreover, a 0.5% interest rate severely affects those who used their money wisely, and saved for a rainy day and their retirement, and does not encourage prudent investments, simply encouraging those looking to make a quick profit.

The economy is a mess. Labour want to drag it out for another 10 years, the Government is too scared to accept immediate pain for public long-term gain. Given the choice between a painful decade, ending with a true bust, or accepting the failures of Government now, and starting to rebuild our economy, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories are too scared. They're too concerned with being in power, as opposed to doing what is right for the people. 


Government bailed out the banks, Government got us into this mess, and the Coalition Government is most definitely not sorting this out.

How I Lost Weight

As some/most of you will be aware, I've had a pretty successful time losing weight this year: I started on Monday, January 3rd 2011 with the following stats (at 6ft 4in):


Weight: 245lbs (17.5st)
BMI: 29.8 
Body Fat: 30%
Neck: 18.5"
Chest: 48"
Waist: 38-40"


This looked like:

As of today, Friday 25th November 2011, I have the following stats: 

208.8lbs (14st 12.8)

BMI: 25.3

Body Fat: 22.6

Neck: 16"

Chest: 42"

Waist: 34"

This looks like:

Yes, I've (much) less hair, I've spent a fortune getting a new wardrobe (2 installments!) but I feel happier, and, in all honesty, think I look it too.


Some have asked if I've been ill(!), had an extreme diet, or gone crazy exercising. The truth is, none of the above. I used MyFitnessPal which has an app for Android and the iPhone, where you track what you eat. I started off looking for 2lbs a week weight loss, needing a net 2,000 calories a day.

Now I'm targeting 1,800 calories a day; my hints (bearing in mind I wake up at 5am and work on my feet most of the time!) 

Choose from:

Breakfast (5:30am - 175ish calories)

2 rashers of Tesco healthy eating unsmoked bacon & two slices of bread;

OR one Kelloggs mini pack of cereal with milk 

Snack: (9am - 300 calories)

2 slices of bread, small tin of baked beans

Lunch (Max of about 350 calories): 

Soup, banana/cereal bar, apple

Dinner: 

Whatever.

I've eaten 825 calories by now, so have approx 1,000 to eat. From saving meals as you cook them in the app, you know how many are in each. For example, chicken kiev with vegetables and a jacket potato comes in at 755 calories-ish, and my chilli comes in at 990. Curry? 959, spaghetti bolognese with garlic bread? 1,076.

You'll notice a few 'ish's around. I don't go overboard. Ketchup? Butter? Just add it as usual, don't bother faffing about with it! Pepsi Max at 1cal? Ignore it. Counting every tiny thing, and being too accurate isn't long-term weight-loss. It's about having an idea, knowing your limits, and sticking to them - mostly! 

Fancy a medium sized dominos pizza, at 1,600 calories? Do a 3 mile walk in an hour, burn off 312 calories (for my weight), and treat yourself! 

UKIP Chester Leaflets (Late 2011)

Voting UKIP Lets Labour Win? Really?

A recent occurrence/trend on Twitter, is for the Tories to say that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour, and a Labour Government is a by-product of UKIP's popularity, and there's only room for one "centre-right" Party.

Really?

If closing your eyes, covering your ears, repeating "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" does the job for you, go for it.

Alternatively, allow me to provide some alternative reasoning:

1) UKIP have been around for 18 years; UKIPs strongest electoral performance resulted in a "Tory-led" Government.
2) The Tories are not right-wing.
3) I see no real difference between the two, particularly when it was only 3 years ago that the Tories promised to match Labour's spending plans.
4) The Lib Dems have had a much stronger electoral performance than UKIP in the time we've been in existence, and during this time Labour won 3 elections outright.
5) You're running scared, because you know UKIP are taking votes from the Tories because the Tories aren't appealing to the voters they once were, and UKIP are gaining popularity.
6) We're different Parties - deal with it.
7) If we're truly a single-issue Party, you could easy pull the rug from under us by advocating EU withdrawal or at very least promise a referendum.
8) Labour win elections because people vote Labour.
9) There is no need for a Labour Government. You are Labour now that you are subsidising mortgages for people, with the tax payer left to take the hit.
10) They should stop complaining about UKIP and look at their leader and their policies.

and finally...

11) The only people helping Labour win elections are Cameron and his team. The Tories managed, astonishingly, to fail to win a majority against a Brown-led Labour government which overspent and left the country in ruins.

Why I Won't Be Striking On November 30th

Background via the BBC:

That would mean many employees being evicted from their existing schemes (mainly final-salary-related) into career-average ones, which should be less generous.
They would also have to pay higher employee contributions.
The NHS, local government, civil service and teachers' schemes would also have later retirement ages of 65 (rising later to 66 or even more in line with the state pension) whereas many staff are still currently able to bail out at 60 on a full pension.
On the face of it, public servants are being invited to work longer, pay more but receive less.

This makes the public sector look like it's about to have its knees capped and thrown in the workhouse. It isn't.

The main features of the new pension scheme:

1. The higher pension contributions now being asked of public sector staff in their mainly final-salary pensions - averaging an extra 3.2% of their salaries over the next three years - will carry over to the new schemes. Contributions will be less for lower earners.
2. The standard 'accrual rate' will be 1/65th. On a salary of £20,000 this gives a pension of £308 a year for each year worked. This is less than the 1/60th accrual rate in place for most final-salary schemes currently, which gives a pension of £333 for each year worked. However, working longer could mean a bigger pension at retirement.
3. The revaluation of pension entitlement each year during accrual will be in line with a measure of average earnings, to protect pensions from inflation as they are being built up. That will mean better pensions for many workers, particularly women, and means the perception that all staff will necessarily receive smaller pensions is wrong.
4. The normal pension age will rise in line with the state pension age (SPA), which will increase from 65 to 66 by 2020, and to 67 by 2027 as life expectancy increases.
5. Pensions in payment will be inflation-proofed, rising in line with the consumer prices index (CPI). Benefits under the current schemes were previously linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI) but with effect from April 2011 they changed to using CPI. This change is currently being challenged in the courts by trade unions.

Let's go through these point by point.

1) The more you earn, the more you contribute. Sounds fair...

2) Working longer means a larger pension. Sounds fair... Oh, and it's £2.08 a month difference. Or 48p a week.

3) If anyone tells me it's fair for someone to earn £15,000 a year for 40 years, then earn £100,000 for 2, and have their pension based on the latter figure, they're incredibly wrong, selfish, and financially illiterate.

4) Your state pension is distributed at the same time as your state pension (from working). Again, sounds fair... (Similarly, I'm surprised it's only rising to 67 by 2027. I fully expect to never receive a state pension, and I will be 70 in 2054)

5) It's not a reduction/cut - it's simply slowing the rate of increase, much like the Government is currently doing with public spending. For example, a pensioner receiving £10,000 a year in 2010, this change means a pension of £11,400 rather than £12,200 in 2016. A £133pa difference. (Or £11.08pm/£2.56pw)

Bear in mind the Government have said that those on the cusp on retirement will see no changes either.

You know how those rabid Thatcher-haters on the left attack her 'There is no such thing as society' speech, blissfully ignoring the rest of it? I am a part of society. A part of a society where public spending has been grotesquely out of proportion. A part of society where the state has been used to buy votes. A part of society where every person in employment owes £34,218 towards repaying the national debt. A part of society which bears in mind the 100%, not just one special interest group.

I'm not striking because we need to reduce the deficit and the debt. 

Who's with me?

EDIT: My thoughts on Trade Unions can be found here.

EDIT 2: Question: Why is there a pension scheme for public sector jobs? Most organisations don't have one in place.

Alcohol Price Fixing in CWaC

On June 8th, Cheshire West and Chester Council's Conservative Executive considered Alcohol Harm Reduction and Minimum Unit Pricing. If you are so minded, fast forward to 1hr 02mins in here.

The Executive considered the report of the Director of Community and Environment that provided an overview of the current position regarding minimum unit pricing for alcohol across Cheshire and Warrington and the wider region.

The report set out how progress towards a reduction in alcohol-related harm would be accelerated by formally supporting the pursuit of the enactment of national legislation, or a byelaw to implement a set minimum price per unit for alcohol.

Councillor Lynn Riley, Executive Member for Community and Environment led the discussion on this item.

DECISION:

(1) That the findings outlined in the report be noted, and that the clinical support for minimum unit pricing be acknowledged; and

(2) That an approach aiming to introduce a minimum price of 50p per unit across Cheshire and Warrington and continues to pursue a byelaw as well as the enactment of national legislation to implement a minimum unit price for alcohol, as part of a wider strategy to tackle alcohol harm be endorsed.

Reason for the Decision

To reduce the negative impacts of alcohol harm, including the cost to health, the financial cost to the health system, alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and criminal activity.

Alternative Options

None considered.

Firstly, this is what the Conservative Health Secretary has to say on the issue:

"Regarding NICE's recommendations on minimum pricing for units of alcohol, it is not clear that the research examines specifically the regressive effect on low income families, or proves conclusively that it is the best way to impact price in order to impact demand.

"Supply and price are far from the only factors in driving alcohol misuse. Demand and attitudes are crucial. We need to understand much better the psychology behind why different groups of people drink alcohol in excess. The root causes of social problems lie not just in government policies – although 24-hour drinking legislation has severely undermined clinician and police efforts to get to grips with this problem - but in social norms and peer influence."

Secondly, Alex Deane of Big Brother Watch:

“This is typical nanny statism from a bullying, increasingly authoritarian organisation. We are entitled to have a drink when we want one. Doctors are there to heal us, and can keep their opinions about lifestyles to themselves unless asked – after all, we pay the tax which pays for the health service. A database of smoking or drinking could, in the long run, be used to charge us when we need medical help and may frighten people away from seeing doctors or from being honest with them."

Finally, the Adam Smith Institute:

Is the problem that alcohol is too cheap? Again, alcohol is very much cheaper in most other European countries, because tax makes up so much (and often most) of the cost of the alcohol sold in the UK. Our tax on beer, for example, is ten times higher that in Germany and seven times that in France.

No, if there is a problem with alcohol-fuelled loutishness, its roots lie elsewhere. It could be that with the smoking ban, we have killed off so many pubs. In pubs, at least, people (especially young people) at least drink under the supervision of the licensee and other members of the public – when they load up at the supermarket, they don't. And on the streets, there is unlikely to be a beat police officer in range who might tell them to calm it down a bit. They are six times more likely (yes, really) to be back in the station doing paperwork.

The other big cause is probably what David Cameron bangs on about: the decline of personal and family responsibility, whereby young people are not taught, and struggle to learn, the limits of acceptable social behaviour. Perhaps we are so used to the state running our lives that we leave such problems to the schools and the authorities. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the resulting mess.

Even if cheap alcohol were the problem, how should you deal with it? Putting up the tax would at least be defensible economics. Minimum pricing isn't. Price controls just mess up the market system and produce all sorts of perverse results which may be hard to predict. And once the politicians have started to regulate one price on the supermarket shelves, where do you think their public-spirited intervention will stop?

Nothing further to add, other than it is nice to see that no other options were considered.

Oh, booze run to Broughton anyone?

Cheshire West and Chester Credit Cards

So it wasn't a long hibernation!

Per The Telegraph

Going through the list, there's £2,878.50 from the Chief Executive/Leader's Office for a stay at the Old Swan Hotel, Harrogate, on June 25th 2009.

From doing some research, there was a Local Government Association Conference and Exhibition held in Harrogate. From June 30th to July 3rd.

Which begs the following three questions: Firstly, did the Chief Exec/Leader attend this Conference, or was it another? If it was this Conference, was the money simply paid in advance, or did the Chief Exec/Leader arrive in Harrogate at the Tax Payer's expense 6 days early? Why was the most expensive hotel chosen, £65 a night more than the cheapest?

Update: CWaC Watcher points out that there was a Queen concert in Harrogate on 25/6/09!

Hibernation

Following my decision to start a new blogging venture with Arnie Craven & Dan List at Independent Thought, blogging here will only relate to myself & UKIP in Chester.

As such, blogging here will be extremely light!

Please join me at Independent Thought - I'll see you there!

Richard