Still on the subject of New Labour's fanaticism for law and order, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has urged Police to 'harass young thugs' (BBC News: Harass young thugs, police urged)
There are a number of problems with this tabloidocratic idea. Firstly, it legitimises police harassment, which is unsavoury at the best of times. Even worse, what is there now to stop incidents of police racial harassment, which have occurred in the past - indeed, it is understood to have been police harassment of young black people which was the flash-point triggering riots (such as those in Brixton, Handsworth and Toxteth) in the 1980's. Even now, black people are significantly more likely to be stopped and searched by Police than white people, a problem which is hardly likely to be helped by Ms Smith saying that police harassment is a good thing!
Then, there's the nature of the harassment that Jacqui Smith is advocating - namely, the persistent checking of 'thugs' for fairly trivial offences such as benefit fraud and TV licence evasion. Is this an admission that the government has passed so many laws (literally hundreds, possibly even thousands since 1997!) that the Police can't enforce them all, so they need to enforce them selectively? If so, I guess this kills the myth of everyone being equal in the eyes of the law :-P
Finally, what is a 'young thug'? Don't get me wrong, I have no time at all for bullies who threaten people, i've been on the wrong end of quite a few myself over the years. But I don't think 'playing them at their own game' is the answer, especially when the Establishment's definition of 'thug' seems to not necessarily be the same as how ordinary people understand the term. One of the criteria mentioned in the BBC News article is 'street drinking' which, like drug use, underage drinking etc, is not a violent or threatening act in and of itself. Also mentioned is breach of ASBO's - yet some of the ASBOs served are unfair, occasionally ridiculous (some examples are quoted on the ASBOwatch website).
This isn't the first time a Home Secretary has suggested the increased use of a flawed practice by the police. Back in 2004, David Blunkett urged police to increase the use of police informants ('coppers' narks', 'green giros'. 'PFI CSI's', call them what you will) - despite the fact that many informants abuse their near-untouchable status to commit more crimes, violence and bullying included :-(
Then again, if Ms Smith really wants the Police to harass some thugs, I can point them in the direction of a few. In Westminster, there is a gang of people who have instigated mass violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have indulged in threatening behaviour towards Iran and Syria. Maybe the Police could also investigate these people for theft from low paid workers, vandalism of public services, milking House of Commons expenses , etc, etc :-P
Showing posts with label Home Office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Home Office. Show all posts
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Thursday, 8 May 2008
High time for decriminalisation
Having lost so miserably in the recent elections, I hoped this New Labour government may have learned some lessons. Sadly, they've learned the wrong lessons, and now think their main chance of recovery is to be more like the Tories. (Indeed, in some cases, to be more Tory than the Tories). Such is the case with law and order.
So it is perhaps not surprising that cannabis has now been uprated to a class B drug, from class C, carrying tougher penalties for sale and possession (BBC News: Cannabis laws to be strengthened). This is despite the fact that cannabis is not addictive (unlike tobacco and even alcohol), has very few proven harmful effects (the alleged link between schizophrenia and cannabis use is far from definite),and deaths from cannabis use are few and far between. Last but not least, the government has even ignored an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs review, which recommended cannabis stay class C - despite the fact that the report was itself commissioned by the government! Ah well, typical I guess of the arrogance of this government, always thinks it knows best and won't listen to reason :-(
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite aware that not all cannabis use is in any way progressive; nowadays a cannabis user is just as likely to be a brainwashed lumpenproletarian with right-wing oppressive ideas, as he/she is to be a progressive peace-loving hippy. But, just because cannabis use has spread beyond the hippy movement, doesn't make it, in and of itself, any more harmful.
What will make it more harmful is increased prohibition, driving it further underground and its suppliers further into the criminal underworld. The more illegal a product is, the greater are the profits to be made by those prepared to break the law by selling it - and these profits are often made by underhand means such as mixing the drug with similar looking but potentially harmful products, as is often done with class A drugs such as heroin.
It's not just recreational users who will suffer, either. Cannabis has numerous medicinal uses, including as treatments for multiple sclerosis, arthritis, etc. Yet this government, and the previous Tory government, have persistently refused to consider making cannabis available on prescription or even licence it for medicinal use - which is why we are still seeing people arrested, even jailed, for using or supplying cannabis for medicinal use. This problem can only be made worse by the government's decision to increase the penalties for its use.
The drugs moral panic, which will be fed by the decision to reclassify cannabis, also has wider implications. In many areas it takes on a racist edge, as black people are more likely to be arrested, searched, and prosecuted for drug use than white people. (This was also the case in 1990's America, where the 'war on drugs' was often nicknamed the 'war on blacks').
Personally, I think cannabis should be legalised and regulated. It is one of the less dangerous drugs - responsible for far fewer deaths than tobacco and alcohol, which are both legal.
I also think hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine should be decriminalised, as this would allow addicts to be able to get help without fear of arrest and prosecution. I would supply 'safe' (or as safe as possible!) uncut heroin, cocaine etc on prescription - removing much theft-related crime, by addicts who steal to fund their habit, not to mention removing a source of income from gangsters.
In fact, I think Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown etc should all be prescribed a nice big spliff. It might make them lighten up and mellow out, and expand their narrow minds, for a change!
So it is perhaps not surprising that cannabis has now been uprated to a class B drug, from class C, carrying tougher penalties for sale and possession (BBC News: Cannabis laws to be strengthened). This is despite the fact that cannabis is not addictive (unlike tobacco and even alcohol), has very few proven harmful effects (the alleged link between schizophrenia and cannabis use is far from definite),and deaths from cannabis use are few and far between. Last but not least, the government has even ignored an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs review, which recommended cannabis stay class C - despite the fact that the report was itself commissioned by the government! Ah well, typical I guess of the arrogance of this government, always thinks it knows best and won't listen to reason :-(
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite aware that not all cannabis use is in any way progressive; nowadays a cannabis user is just as likely to be a brainwashed lumpenproletarian with right-wing oppressive ideas, as he/she is to be a progressive peace-loving hippy. But, just because cannabis use has spread beyond the hippy movement, doesn't make it, in and of itself, any more harmful.
What will make it more harmful is increased prohibition, driving it further underground and its suppliers further into the criminal underworld. The more illegal a product is, the greater are the profits to be made by those prepared to break the law by selling it - and these profits are often made by underhand means such as mixing the drug with similar looking but potentially harmful products, as is often done with class A drugs such as heroin.
It's not just recreational users who will suffer, either. Cannabis has numerous medicinal uses, including as treatments for multiple sclerosis, arthritis, etc. Yet this government, and the previous Tory government, have persistently refused to consider making cannabis available on prescription or even licence it for medicinal use - which is why we are still seeing people arrested, even jailed, for using or supplying cannabis for medicinal use. This problem can only be made worse by the government's decision to increase the penalties for its use.
The drugs moral panic, which will be fed by the decision to reclassify cannabis, also has wider implications. In many areas it takes on a racist edge, as black people are more likely to be arrested, searched, and prosecuted for drug use than white people. (This was also the case in 1990's America, where the 'war on drugs' was often nicknamed the 'war on blacks').
Personally, I think cannabis should be legalised and regulated. It is one of the less dangerous drugs - responsible for far fewer deaths than tobacco and alcohol, which are both legal.
I also think hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine should be decriminalised, as this would allow addicts to be able to get help without fear of arrest and prosecution. I would supply 'safe' (or as safe as possible!) uncut heroin, cocaine etc on prescription - removing much theft-related crime, by addicts who steal to fund their habit, not to mention removing a source of income from gangsters.
In fact, I think Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown etc should all be prescribed a nice big spliff. It might make them lighten up and mellow out, and expand their narrow minds, for a change!
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Pimping an alternative
I notice the Home Office are now running radio adverts against kerb-crawling for prostitutes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of prostitution at all - it is degrading, exploitative and often dangerous work for the people (mostly women) involved. However, I am extremely sceptical about whether cracking down on prostitutes, or even their prospective clients, is really the answer.
Prostitution is hardly their first career choice. Rather, they are desperate people - according to the Home Office's own web page on the subject, "up to 95% of those involved in street-based prostitution are problem drug-users" (ie drug addicts) ", and many are homeless". Many are desperate for the income they receive from prostitution, and are unlikely to stop - rather, the problems will be driven underground.
The dangers associated with prostitution were highlighted in December last year, when 5 prostitutes were killed in Suffolk. Any crackdown will make prostitutes and their clients less likely to co-operate with Police and give information regarding violence (in the extreme case, murder) towards prostitutes. Indeed, it is often stated that in the Netherlands, where prostitution is tolerated, the incidence of violence towards prostitutes - and sex crimes in general - is much lower than in the UK.
The radio adverts emphasise the fact that kerb crawlers can be caught on CCTV. Now if we are to believe the propaganda in support of CCTV, it is supposed to make people safer. Surely, then, chasing prostitutes into relatively secluded or remote areas without CCTV, will make them more at risk!
What, then, is the answer? One possibility is for licenced brothels, preferably run as sex workers' co-operatives. In addition, regular health checks - notably STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) checks - and safe sex education, free condoms etc for prostitutes would greatly improve the welfare of prostitutes, as well as helping to reduce the incidence of STD's in the wider population.
I also think there should be efforts to bring sex workers (prostitutes included) into trade unions. This would not be unprecedented; in the USA in the 1910's and 1920's, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, often known as the "Wobblies") was the first to organise prostitutes. (source: The Lucy Parsons Project - Women in Textiles)
Then again, when the current government sometimes seems nearly as hostile to trade unions taking industrial action as its Tory predecessor, I don't think they'll support that idea. They'll feel much more at home taking a moralising stance against prostitutes and their clients :-(
Prostitution is hardly their first career choice. Rather, they are desperate people - according to the Home Office's own web page on the subject, "up to 95% of those involved in street-based prostitution are problem drug-users" (ie drug addicts) ", and many are homeless". Many are desperate for the income they receive from prostitution, and are unlikely to stop - rather, the problems will be driven underground.
The dangers associated with prostitution were highlighted in December last year, when 5 prostitutes were killed in Suffolk. Any crackdown will make prostitutes and their clients less likely to co-operate with Police and give information regarding violence (in the extreme case, murder) towards prostitutes. Indeed, it is often stated that in the Netherlands, where prostitution is tolerated, the incidence of violence towards prostitutes - and sex crimes in general - is much lower than in the UK.
The radio adverts emphasise the fact that kerb crawlers can be caught on CCTV. Now if we are to believe the propaganda in support of CCTV, it is supposed to make people safer. Surely, then, chasing prostitutes into relatively secluded or remote areas without CCTV, will make them more at risk!
What, then, is the answer? One possibility is for licenced brothels, preferably run as sex workers' co-operatives. In addition, regular health checks - notably STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) checks - and safe sex education, free condoms etc for prostitutes would greatly improve the welfare of prostitutes, as well as helping to reduce the incidence of STD's in the wider population.
I also think there should be efforts to bring sex workers (prostitutes included) into trade unions. This would not be unprecedented; in the USA in the 1910's and 1920's, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, often known as the "Wobblies") was the first to organise prostitutes. (source: The Lucy Parsons Project - Women in Textiles)
Then again, when the current government sometimes seems nearly as hostile to trade unions taking industrial action as its Tory predecessor, I don't think they'll support that idea. They'll feel much more at home taking a moralising stance against prostitutes and their clients :-(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
