Abbott’s assertions

Diane Abbott’s twitterstorm-provoking comment was wrong — factually. And that should be all that matters.

The claim that “white people love to play divide and rule” is clearly unlikely to be true since there’s no reason to believe that the content of one’s character is related to the colour of one’s skin.

She ought to have gathered some pretty strong data to the contrary before thinking about making that statement. Since she doesn’t, then the only response is to ignore it or to correct her misconception, and, in either case, swiftly move on.

The problem is not racism, “reverse” or otherwise. It’s the casual making of unevidenced assertions. Diane Abbott is no more guilty of that than most MPs — or most people.

Diamonds in and out of the rough

Behind every addiction, there’s a person. Policy should be aimed at providing the best help for them.

There’s an element among prohibitionists that views the use of some drugs as inherently immoral – and that can’t seem to separate their hatred of the sin with that of the sinner. Read the rest

Quick note on “benefit cheats” vs tax avoidance

A tweet from the folks at UK Uncut this morning:

“‘Benefit cheats’ are vilified and arrested. Wealthy tax cheats are given a free lunch at HMRC”

It doesn’t really stand up.

By all means compare benefit cheats with illegal tax evasion (a couple of billion versus a whopping £70bn, respectively, if some figures are to be believed).

But this is (apparently) comparing fraudulent benefit claims with legal tax avoidance.

If any comparison is to be made at all then tax avoidance is more like the legal claiming of benefits to which one is entitled but doesn’t actually need.

There are no figures for this, as opposed to, say, the 0.5% rate of fraud for Disability Living Allowance. But I would imagine that that’s at least half of all child benefit, and, before the recession, a significant slice of jobseeker’s allowance too, claimed by people who could work but are waiting for a job in their own field. (I’ve done this myself during two spells of unemployment, though I only signed on for about 10% of either period.)

One can hardly complain about tax-avoiders taking full advantage of the system. It’s something that a huge number of people are perfectly content to do.

The substance tautology

The artificial difference in legal status between alcohol and other drugs is unjust and counterproductive

One evening towards the last throes of a pitiful summer, and you’re approaching the run-down concrete expanse that you call… not ‘home’, exactly, but at least the place where you sleep and where most of your possessions are to be found. Before you get there you’re accosted once again by the same man that has stopped you several times previously, seeking spare change but given short shrift. Perhaps in his 40s and perpetually dishevelled, he can occasionally be seen swilling cheap lager before 9am in the morning, or being forcibly ejected from the nearby off licence at night. Which is cause and which is effect here is, as so often, not easily determined, and drinking is just as likely to be a crutch to a combination of problems as it is to be the trigger of any of them. Read the rest

Cocaine Unwrapped

A new documentary shows the devastating impact that cocaine prohibition has on the poor world

Illegal drugs lag behind only oil and arms in terms of total global trade-value. They could be the dirtiest of the three, too. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Read the rest

Who are they trying to kid?

As a policy aimed at keeping drugs away from children, prohibition clearly doesn’t work

Not even the most libertarian-minded of reformers would argue that drugs (of any kind) should be readily available to children. Likewise, one of the most common reasons for backing prohibition, especially among parents, is the belief that it will mean their children can’t easily get their hands on potentially harmful substances. Read the rest

Cartel hitman offers confessions – but little remorse

The path from naive drug-courier to remorseless killer is all too easy

During a recent trip to Waterstone’s, I happened to pick up US journalist Charles Bowden’s book El Sicario: Confessions of a Cartel Hitman. Read the rest

Recessions spur yet more black-market harm

Is the difference in changes in drug use and alcohol consumption during recessions down to the way they’re regulated?

The increase in use of cannabis by young people during economic recessions could be a result of its trade being left to the black market, according to the codirector of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, Rosalie Pacula. Read the rest

Rude health

At the weekend, a group of protesters blocked off Westminster Bridge in support of the NHS.

Today’s passing of the Health and Social Care Bill through the House of Lords has been accompanied by an outpouring of lamentation for the NHS.

For the NHS.

Not in support of the general principle of universally accessible healthcare, or publicly funded healthcare. In support specifically of the National Health Service as it currently exists.

The NHS is not synonymous with universal access to, or with public funding of, medical treatment. It is one specific way of delivering those things.

It’s not the only way of running a health service. And it’s not necessarily the best way.

Gathering evidence and comparing the different options would be ideal, if difficult. But the fact that French healthcare has been ranked so much better than ours might suggest they’re onto something.

If we try putting the provision of healthcare into private hands, and it makes things worse, we can always revert to the current model.

What the protesters are effectively saying, though, is this: that they want the health service in this country to be run by the state, in this precise fashion, irrespective of how good it is.

They’re arguing that the means is more important than the end.

Me, I want the best universal healthcare we can get – irrespective of who runs it.

The genius of Peter Hitchens

What can we expect from his history of drug prohibition, out next year?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence,” as F Scott Fitzgerald wrote in Esquire magazine back in 1936, “is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Read the rest