My Representation
06-10-2004, 19:28
I haven't had much to do at work for the last two days and I am used that time well by contemplating politics. I noted down on 6 questions:
1 The Tories, in Britain, are going on the offensive on drugs and promising that they WILL be successful. Are drug laws enforceable? It is often said that a majority support the drug laws, but that is not enough to ensure the law works. To get a law being fully respected, you need about 90% of the population to support it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that 20% of the British public think that drug laws are too harsh and that causes big bring problems for respecting those laws. Also, although there may be a majority who support the laws verbally, how many people would bother ringing the police about drug use, unless it directly effected them? If you are walking down a road and see a burglary or an assault, you would probably be willing to tell the police - or a decent majority would anyway. If you see some kids shooting heroin or smoking cannabis, how many would ring the police about that? Very, very few, I'd suggest. Are these laws unenforceable?
2 Anyone who has tried both cannabis and alcohol will testify that alcohol is the more dangerous drug. Alcohol makes people violent, stubborn, whilst cannabis makes people peaceful and agreeable. Alcohol is worse for your health than cannabis is. You may say that this doesn't mean that cannabis should be legalised, but that alcohol should be illegalised - but, of course, no-one thinks it is practical to ban alcohol. Is it moral for a state to punish a cannabis user and not an alcohol user, when the latter is a greater risk both to themselves and to society? Is this not a hypocritical state?
3 Mutually Assured Destruction was the cornerstone of British foreign policy during the Cold War. During the debate on the Iraq War, Blair made it clear that Hussein would use his weapons against us. But isn't that what the nuclear deterrent was supposed to prevent? So if this nuclear section isn't doing its job of deterring the tyrants of the world, why exactly do we keep it? It's expensive enough.
4 People say the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent, because no-one wants to die. However, look at how many people jump at going to war. There is a strong possibility that you will die at war, yet this does not seem to deter everybody. Isn't is strange how some right-wing politicians will say that the death penalty is a good deterrent and then talk about risking death in war as if it was the most rational thing one could do? Drug abuse is another example of people risking their lives. Boxing and brutal sports as well. Even things like bungee jumping and parachuting. On top of this, statisticians seem to think that the death penalty has no effect at all on deterring murder. Isn't it time this argument was abandoned?
5 Al-Qaida's aim was to overthrow corrupt Arab regimes and replace them with Islamic states. They originally targetted America not because of any "hatred of American values", but because they supported the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia and also Israel. If America did adopt a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, would Al-Qaida forget about America and focus on their original enemies? [On this note, the idea that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaida is about as credible as saying that the Pope is linked to the Church of Satan].
6 Every country provides a basic standard of living for their prisoners. They get food, exercise, often reading material, sometimes even personal educators and psychiatrists. Is it justifiable to provide such welfare for prisoners which is not provided for the poorest members of the non-criminal population?
1 The Tories, in Britain, are going on the offensive on drugs and promising that they WILL be successful. Are drug laws enforceable? It is often said that a majority support the drug laws, but that is not enough to ensure the law works. To get a law being fully respected, you need about 90% of the population to support it. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that 20% of the British public think that drug laws are too harsh and that causes big bring problems for respecting those laws. Also, although there may be a majority who support the laws verbally, how many people would bother ringing the police about drug use, unless it directly effected them? If you are walking down a road and see a burglary or an assault, you would probably be willing to tell the police - or a decent majority would anyway. If you see some kids shooting heroin or smoking cannabis, how many would ring the police about that? Very, very few, I'd suggest. Are these laws unenforceable?
2 Anyone who has tried both cannabis and alcohol will testify that alcohol is the more dangerous drug. Alcohol makes people violent, stubborn, whilst cannabis makes people peaceful and agreeable. Alcohol is worse for your health than cannabis is. You may say that this doesn't mean that cannabis should be legalised, but that alcohol should be illegalised - but, of course, no-one thinks it is practical to ban alcohol. Is it moral for a state to punish a cannabis user and not an alcohol user, when the latter is a greater risk both to themselves and to society? Is this not a hypocritical state?
3 Mutually Assured Destruction was the cornerstone of British foreign policy during the Cold War. During the debate on the Iraq War, Blair made it clear that Hussein would use his weapons against us. But isn't that what the nuclear deterrent was supposed to prevent? So if this nuclear section isn't doing its job of deterring the tyrants of the world, why exactly do we keep it? It's expensive enough.
4 People say the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent, because no-one wants to die. However, look at how many people jump at going to war. There is a strong possibility that you will die at war, yet this does not seem to deter everybody. Isn't is strange how some right-wing politicians will say that the death penalty is a good deterrent and then talk about risking death in war as if it was the most rational thing one could do? Drug abuse is another example of people risking their lives. Boxing and brutal sports as well. Even things like bungee jumping and parachuting. On top of this, statisticians seem to think that the death penalty has no effect at all on deterring murder. Isn't it time this argument was abandoned?
5 Al-Qaida's aim was to overthrow corrupt Arab regimes and replace them with Islamic states. They originally targetted America not because of any "hatred of American values", but because they supported the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia and also Israel. If America did adopt a policy of non-intervention in the Middle East, would Al-Qaida forget about America and focus on their original enemies? [On this note, the idea that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaida is about as credible as saying that the Pope is linked to the Church of Satan].
6 Every country provides a basic standard of living for their prisoners. They get food, exercise, often reading material, sometimes even personal educators and psychiatrists. Is it justifiable to provide such welfare for prisoners which is not provided for the poorest members of the non-criminal population?