REPUBLIC OF AUSTRALIA

Peter FitzSimons to head Australian republic campaign

A prominent journalist and author has been elected to the post of chairman of the Australian Republic Movement and is keen to mount an early challenge to the right of British Royalty to rule the once British convict colony.

Peter FitzSimons

Republicans see the high profile FitzSimons as the man who can make the difference. FitzSimons has been the author of nine books of Australian history. He is a prominent newspaper and radio journalist, and has served on many boards and committees including the Australian War Memorial, the ANZAC Centenary Advisory Board, the Sydney Writers Festival, the Senate of Sydney University, and numerous sporting committees.

FitzSimons was named a Member of the Order of Australia in 2011 for service to literature, journalism, conservation, disability care, and sporting organisations. As a rugby player, Peter FitzSimons represented Australia against France and New Zealand as a lock from 1989 to 1990. He has a degree in government and political science from the University of Sydney. He also had a year in Ohio on a field scholarship. Peter FitzSimons is a Fairfax Media columnist and is married to Nine Network’s Lisa Wilkinson. They have three children.

Nathaniel's Bloodline

“I do believe that Tony Abbot will be Australia’s last monarchist Prime Minister,” FitzSimons has been reported as saying. “Whatever happens from this point, should it be Labor or should it be another Liberal, in all likelihood there will soon be bipartisan support in the federal leadership for a republic,” he said.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has already declared his support for a republic with this statement: “Like all Australians, I have tremendous respect for Queen Elizabeth. She has fulfilled her constitutional responsibilities with grace for many years, but I don’t believe we have to wait for a change of monarch to renew the republic debate.”

Republicanism in Australia as a movement dates from 1832 when Horatio Wills, the son of a convict published The Currency Lad in which he promoted Australia as a republic. In 1854 some participants in the revolt at the Eureka Stockade in Victoria were openly republican and some later republican movements adopted the Eureka flag.

As the Australian colonies moved toward federation in 1901, republicanism was widely debated, but the country was fully engaged in the process of federation, and declaring a republic was seen as one step too far at a critical stage in the constitutional evolution.

Republicanism in Australia was re-awakened by the dismissal of the Gough Government by the Governor-General in 1975, but again the majority were in favour of the status quo.

In recent years the Australian Labor Party has actively pursued the republican aim with Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in favour. But a referendum scheduled to be held in 1998 was replaced by a Constitutional Convention after royalist Prime Minister John Howard ousted labour in 1996. At that time a majority of Australians favoured a republic, but there was disagreement on the structure of it. Finally, a referendum was held in 1999, at a time when many Australians were becoming wearied by the debate, and the republican proposition was defeated.

Frequent objections to having a republic have been that it would be seen as an insult to the Royal Family. Others believe that Australia would no longer be eligible to be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, but little do they seem to realise that most Commonwealth members are in fact republics, and the Queen still visits those countries as head of the Commonwealth without being offended in the least.

Another frequently expressed objection is that Australia would be too much like America, as though America was the world’s only republic. In fact republics outnumber all other systems of government combined. In the 21^st century a republic is the normal and accepted constitutional system, while kingdoms and constitutional monarchies are very much in the minority. Another objection often stated is that the time is not right and the right time would be after a monarch has been crowned. But that is a bit like saying, no time will ever be the right time.

TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

Is the TPPA a big business conspiracy to create a new world order?

Opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is getting a full head of steam in every country that is a party to the secret negotiations.

The TPPA partners are the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Peru, but more countries including China and South Korea may join.

The partnership had its roots in an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, in 2002, when New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, Goh Chock Tong the Prime Minister of Singapore, and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, began negotiations on the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership.

Previous New Zealand governments had negotiated for access for New Zealand produce into the European Economic Community (now the European Union) with considerable success against determined opposition from some EEC members (The United Kingdom Government itself had to contend with determined opposition from its own people).

Former New Zealand
Prime Minister Helen Clark

New Zealand politicians had also negotiated two free trade and economic treaties with Australia, in spite of bitter opposition from the public in both countries on the basis that it was a sell-out and there would be a wholesale loss of jobs and unfair competition. The final free trade agreement between the two countries has been a huge success for both business and employment, and the two countries continue to move closer together.

With that record, New Zealand was seen as a country well capable of punching above its weight on the world stage. Two New Zealand prime ministers, Clark and Mike Moore, have gone on to head two powerful United Nations bodies, further evidence that New Zealand politicians can foot it with the best.

When Brunei in 2006 showed an interest in the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership it was renamed the Trans Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement (P4). In 2008 Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States and Vietnam joined while the negotiations continued and, with 2012 as the target date, the agreement became the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

Former Singapore Prime
Minister Goh Chock Tong

From that first meeting in Mexico, the TPPA has grown to be the world’s largest ever trade agreement negotiations and will bring 40% of the world’s trade, employment and economic activity within its scope.

For people who think that big is bad, it’s time for them to consider the opposite of expanding trade blocs; imploding trade blocs. Think about trade and government the way it was two or three centuries ago. In many countries it was illegal to take produce from one town to the next, let alone across international borders, unless exorbitant tariffs were paid. The purpose of the trade barriers were supposedly to protect local industry and workers, but some people, politicians among them, could see that the effect of the barriers was counter-productive. However, the task of convincing the public at large of the advantages of free trade is not an easy one.

It is no coincidence that as nations and trade blocs have expanded over time, the range of products available has grown, employment has grown, life expectancy has increased and people enjoy more leisure time and healthier life styles. It is no coincidence at all. While it would be wrong to claim that freer trade alone has improved the standard of living, it must be recognised that it has played a major part. When the TPPA is finally signed it will help lift the lifestyle of 40% of the world’s population to an all-time new level of prosperity and quality of life.

Former Chilean President
Ricardo Lagos

So, you may ask, if the TPPA has such a glowing future, why are so many people opposed to it?

Quite simply, the answer lies in human nature. Even in the twenty-first century we all have a natural in-built instinct to protect our own little patch and to preserve what we know and understand. In some ways we haven’t progressed much since we lived in caves. We still believe that a caveman should not be allowed to trade with cavemen on the other side of the mountain. Someone might get a bad deal, and may even lose his cave if the deal goes wrong. Of course, this is an extreme and rather ridiculous example in today’s world, but it illustrates just where we have come from.

It is perfectly natural to think that change will be bad, especially if what we know and trust is replaced by something larger. It is easy to think that there is some kind of conspiracy going on, and that we will be the victims of that conspiracy.

The leaders of the 12 nations that were negotiating the TPPA in 2012

When it comes to the TPPA the conspiracy theory is that the whole thing is driven by big business and that only the big business owners and the politicians will be richer as a result. But such a proposition cannot stand up to proper scrutiny. Economic common sense must tell us that if 99% of the population are poor, then the other 1% will also be poor. Even if the 1% owned 99% of the world’s assets, those assets would be worthless. The products and services owned by the 1% would be useless if 99% of the world population could not afford to buy them. Every day we hear that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that is patently incorrect because it ignores the basic economic reality set out above.

Then there is the suggestion that the TPPA will allow corporations to sue governments. In most parts of the world corporations already have that right. It is also a fact that most agreements, contracts and rules have procedures included to cover breaches. That claim is nothing other than a protestor’s red herring.

The TPPA is driven by far-sighted politicians, skilled departmental advisors and astute business leaders who understand that expanded free trade benefits everyone, except perhaps those countries left out of the loop.

Another reason often given for opposing the TPPA is that it is a conspiracy to create a New World Order (a form of world government) and it is going to be bad for everyone. Well that conspiracy theory has been around for hundreds of years, and we are still waiting.

Then there is the argument that the negotiations are being held in secret and therefore it must be sinister. This writer has one word to describe that theory: Rubbish! I challenge any reader to give me just one example of a trade agreement that was negotiated publicly. That is not how government to government negotiations are conducted. Any government that tried to negotiate that way would certainly finish up on the losing end of the bargaining, and the people shouting the loudest would be the biggest losers.

Just imagine New Zealand’s four million people all having a say. The farmers would make their demands at the expense of everyone else. Manufacturers would do likewise, and so would teachers, orchardists, fishermen, bankers, lawyers, shop assistants, students, and so on. The delicate negotiations between the nations’ leaders, if carried out in public, would quickly degenerate into a violent lolly scramble of epic proportions. It would probably be enough to trigger a world war.

The negotiations can only be held in orderly private sessions. It is quite simply a case of a majority having elected the political leaders, and now they have to trust them. The politicians will understand that if they fail they will fall unceremoniously from office.

Meanwhile, the protest movement in every partner country is convinced that their country alone will be on the losing end of the deal, while all the other partners will win. Well, they can’t all be right on that score.

The opposition comes from many different quarters, even from some who are regularly accused of being involved in conspiracies. Brother Nathanael Channel writing in Real Jew News has stated that, ‘The Trans Pacific Partnership – now in secret negotiations – is nothing less than Globalization on steroids.’ Sorry, Brother, while the negotiators are working away quietly and resolutely, it is the protestors who are on steroids.

But after the TPPA becomes a fact of life, the world and its people will move on. There will be other negotiations, agreements and advances, and there will be more bitter protests and misinformation, lies and finger pointing. But more people will have a bigger share in a larger slice of cake.

UPDATE
Praise to the New Zealand team for walking away from the TPPA negotiations. For 30 years New Zealand farmers have survived without subsidies or trade barriers, but Canada and the USA cannot expect New Zealand to sign up to a free trade agreement while they protect their farmers with subsidies and tariffs. That wouldn't be free trade. North American farmers need to come into the modern world and accept the fact that trade barriers don't help anyone. If they rethink their stance they may possibly get New Zealand back to the negotiating table and the TPPA may survive.

IF THE ILLEGALS ALL LEFT

What if all the illegals left America – all 20 million of them?

There is a popular belief in America, and in most countries, that if all the illegal immigrants could be rounded up and deported, most of that country’s crime and economic problems would go away with them. But how accurate and reliable is that commonly held belief?

Illegal immigration and crime are hotly debated issues in many countries, and the debate is not new. I can remember this same debate raging in New Zealand in the 1950s. New Zealanders wanted to be rid of English, Dutch and Pacific Island immigrants, most of whom were fully legal. In 1962 I went to live in Australia for two years, and the same debate was raging there. Australians wanted all Italians, Greeks and Germans sent home. In 1971 I spent another year working in Australia and the only thing that had changed during my absence was that Australians had started to accept the earlier waves of immigrants and their descendants, and were focusing their attention on New Zealanders, even though they appeared to accept me and other New Zealanders that they knew personally.

It was about that time that I realised for the first time that the whole world had a bee in its bonnet about immigration. But a study of history will quickly illustrate that xenophobia is not new. It has been going on for centuries, even thousands of years, and has been the cause of countless wars and wide-scale and unnecessary human suffering, and it really should stop.

Today, I read a post on Facebook titled ‘What if the illegals left?’ Initially, it had the appearance of being well-research and authoritative. It even posed a question regarding the economic consequences of sending home America’s 20 million illegals. But as I read on, I didn’t find what I had expected to find. The whole tone of the article suddenly became a biased and illogical diatribe about the savings to the American economy, the immediate reduction in the crime rate, and an instant and magical improvement in the American way of life.

Having travelled and/or worked in a number of countries, as well as working with people from almost 200 different countries, I think I can justifiably claim to have some understanding of ‘foreigners’ and immigrants. I have also had the experience of living in a country that lost about 5 percent of its population in just one year. That loss amounted to an economic catastrophe for that country. For America, losing 20 million people in one go would be even more catastrophic. The country would be bankrupted overnight.

The economic savings claimed by the author of ‘What if the illegals left?’ are all based on false and emotive assumptions, rather than factual down-to-earth records. For example, it was claimed that an additional $401 billion extra in taxes would be collected. That could only be achieved by increasing tax rates, because there would be fewer people paying taxes. Then it was claimed that $80 billion a year less would be sent out of the country to the illegals’ homelands, but how much does the rest of the population send out of the country for foreign travel and paying for imported goods? The amount immigrants send home is always grossly overstated. In fact, immigrants tend to spend almost 100 percent of their income just getting established in their new homes. So that is just another popular, and emotive, urban myth.

Nathaniel's Bloodline

Click for a free sample read

As I read the article I realised that the journalist’s name was Tina Griego and I wondered if that was an immigrant name, perhaps from Mexico? Well, I suppose the American population, like that of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, had to come from somewhere. Without immigration those countries would not exist in the way that they do today. People often justify early immigration by saying that ‘the country was empty then,’ or ‘they were hard-working, law-abiding people.’ But in their time they faced the same ill-informed prejudices that today’s immigrants face.

Then Ms Griego claimed that 28 percent of prison inmates are illegal immigrants, but that is in contradiction with the official figures, which show that for a national incarceration rate of 3.04 percent in the 18-39 year age group in the American population, only 0.86 percent of prisoners are foreign born.

At the end of the article, it was claimed that America would make saving of $538 billion from sending home the 20 million illegal immigrants, but that figure has been created out of a collection of highly emotive pieces of claptrap. Not only would there be no savings at all, but there would be a cost that would be far too great for the country to sustain.

It takes population to keep the economy ticking over. Immigrants work hard to get a better life than they had at home. They have to work hard to pay the rent, buy a home, fill it with furniture, educate the children, and so on. When immigrants spend money they keep others in jobs and businesses. If 20 million people were to be deported the consequences would be millions of homes sitting empty, unsold or unrented. Millions of shops and factories closed, and every industry facing the most serious ever downturn. The unemployment rate among American citizens would be the highest ever recorded. The hard times of the 1930s would seem like a mere hiccup compared with the result of 20 million hard-working, law-abiding people being deported.

This lot should be allowed to land,
but after that definitely no more

I leave the final word to the American Immigration Council:

This report has been updated. Please see The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States for the latest information.

Anti-immigrant activists and politicians are fond of relying upon anecdotes to support their oft-repeated claim that immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are dangerous criminals. This mythical claim is usually based on rhetorical sleight of hand in which individual stories of heinous crimes committed by immigrants are presented as “proof” that we must restrict immigration or “get tough” on the undocumented in order to save the lives of U.S. citizens. While these kinds of arguments are emotionally powerful, they are intellectually dishonest. There is no doubt that dangerous criminals must be punished, and that immigrants who are dangerous criminals should not be allowed to enter the United States or should be deported if they already are here. But harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime because—as numerous studies over the past 100 years have shown—immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are not associated with higher rates of crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the undocumented, regardless of their country of origin or level of education.

Conclusion

The problem of crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. This is hardly surprising since immigrants come to the United States to pursue economic and educational opportunities not available in their home countries and to build better lives for themselves and their families. As a result, they have little to gain and much to lose by breaking the law. Undocumented immigrants in particular have even more reason to not run afoul of the law given the risk of deportation that their lack of legal status entails. Public policies must be based on facts, not anecdotes or emotions. And the fact is that the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.

 Highway America

GLOBALIZATION

Jobs dry up for travel 

agents and IT workers

By Alanah Eriksen New Zealand Herald Business

5:30 AM Monday Aug 13, 2012

If you're a travel agent or an accountant, you could be facing "extinction" by 2017.

Car manufacturers, retail and IT workers may also need to start thinking about a new career path as consumers increasingly turn to the internet for services and employers outsource for cheaper labour.

The Balance Recruitment agency has compiled a list of the top five jobs they believe will disappear in the next five years.

Managing director Greg Pankhurst said overseas companies were becoming more trusted by local businesses.

"Many jobs will become obsolete due to technological advances, while others will simply move offshore to Asia," he said. "Offshoring is not a new phenomenon, but people are getting a lot better at it and higher-skilled jobs are starting to go offshore. It used to be the very basic roles.

"It is vital people understand these changes and attempt to reskill so they don't end up becoming superfluous."

Continues below  . . . 

Globalization has made reading 

for entertainment and knowledge

more affordable than ever before.

Ebooks, available worldwide as 
soon as they are uploaded, are only a 
fraction of the cost of printed books!

These great reads can be downloaded to any

e-reading device or PC and are available from Californian company, Smashwords

New Zealand has been benefiting over the past few years as Australian companies outsourced services to New Zealand because it was a 'significantly cheaper' place to do business. But 'a lot of the stigma' about outsourcing further afield had been broken, Mr Pankhurst said.

A computer programmer in India would earn about $8000 a year compared with between $70,000 and $75,000 in New Zealand, he said.

The internet had also diminished some industries significantly, Mr Pankhurst said. Initially, bookshops, travel agents, music and video stores were affected but now niche and high-end suppliers of goods such as sporting goods, computers and branded fashion items, were selling products online.

Economists were expecting New Zealanders to spend $3.2 billion on online purchases this year, with the figure jumping to $5.4 billion for 2016, he said.

Auckland Flight Centre travel agent Mike van Beekhuizen said he didn't fear for his job as people enjoyed the face-to-face experience of customer service.

"You're making holidays come true for families, people are saving for these big trips. You get an email from them when they come back or they come and visit you and they just tell you about their experiences," he said.

The jobs that will survive were those that required a human touch such as hospitality workers, tourism operators, tradesmen, logistics workers, aged and health care and government workers including politicians.

Peter’s Point of View

When the NZ Herald article predicted in 2012 that travel agents and accountants would disappear by 2017, they were clearly wrong. The Herald article was one of the most masterly written pieces of doom and gloom ever published. The predicted demise of travel agents and accountants is simply not happening.

 

The world in which slaves worked until they
died has been replaced by a world
with leisure time and activities for all

It is true that over time some occupations do disappear, but the evolution of business and employment is, in some ways, just like the evolution of nature; as one species becomes extinct many new species take its place. There is a popular saying that as one door closes another opens, but in reality it is often a case of many new doors opening.

Many people like to blame the internet for the so-called hard times that exist today. Let’s examine that.

At the start of the twentieth century, www could have meant wooden wagon wheel because the whole world was busy bemoaning the expected demise of the wooden wagon wheel maker. But the wooden wagon was inefficient, few individuals owned one, and often as not the wheels fell off between one town and the next. To add to the woes of wooden wagon owners, they needed to own a horse and have somewhere to graze it. If the wagon was needed to transport produce to a market, they needed a team of horses.

Nowadays people will tell you that motor vehicles, and their exhaust fumes, are destroying the world, but think where the world would be without motor vehicles. With today’s population the world would be literally knee-deep in horse manure.  

The evolution of business and employment has been going on for thousands of years and the invention of the wheel and the wagon has been a vital part of that evolution, but the development of motor vehicles has been crucial. Before the Industrial Revolution few people lived beyond the age of 40 and the main causes of death were starvation (chiefly from unemployment) war, plague, murder and suicide. 

Industries and occupations are lost when more efficient industries and occupations take their place and efficiency ultimately puts more spending power into more pockets. Granted, there can be pain during transition but in the end commercial and industrial progress means wealth for more people and that can be seen in the growing range of occupations, products and services available that are available and affordable today.

When the wooden wagon wheel disappeared cars, aircraft and telephones were rare. Only the exceptionally wealthy owned them. Radio, television, computers and music tapes and discs, play station and thousands of other products and services now available were yet to be launched. Launching those products and services was not just a simple matter of inventing them and selling millions. They would have been useless until the masses of people had the money to buy them.

Outsourcing is a dirty word to many but it has positive benefits. It helps reduce the cost of goods and services and bring them within the reach of more people.

India, with more poverty and unemployment than any other country in the world, benefits enormously from outsourcing and that is just part of the evolving economic globalization in which ultimately everyone wins. As India becomes more wealthy, there are spin-offs for the rest of the world. Indians are now travelling more than previously thereby creating jobs in travel and tourism. They are also able to import more products from the rest of the world. 

Everyone ultimately wins from globalization.

DRUG LAWS

Drug laws around the world -

does anyone get it right?

As a split emerges in the Government over Britain's future drug policy we look at the different approaches to drug control taken around the world

By Georgia Graham, The Telegraph Political Correspondent 30 Oct 2014

The coalition Government is at war over a new report which suggests that decriminalising drugs could have benefits to the UK.

The Home Office report examining a range of approaches, from zero-tolerance to decriminalisation, it concluded drug use was influenced by factors "more complex and nuanced than legislation and enforcement alone".

The Conservatives say despite the Home Office backed study indicating that decriminalising drugs, even class A substances such as heroin and cocaine, could have some benefits by reducing the burden on the criminal justice system the Government has "absolutely no plans" to decriminalise drugs.

The Liberal Democrats argue that punishing drug users is "pointless" with Lib Dem Home Office minister Norman Baker accusing No10 of sitting on the reports since July and blamed the Conservatives for blocking their release for ‘political reasons’.

It is not just British parties that are split over how to tackle drug use - countries across the world take very different approaches from decriminalisation to lengthy prison sentences and even death. Does anyone get it right?

Portugal

A large part of the report focused on Portugal where drugs were effectively decriminalised over ten years ago. According to the Home Office analysis there has been a "considerable" improvement in the health of drug users in Portugal since the country made drug possession a health issue rather than a criminal one in 2001.

In 2000, Portugal decriminalized the use of all illicit drugs, and developed new policies on prevention, treatment, harm reduction and reinsertion. Drug use is no longer a crime, but it is still prohibited. The country's policy was a key comparison in the report written by Home Office civil servants.

Possession of what a person would use in 10 days or less is no longer a matter for the courts. Users are referred to “Commissions for Drug Addiction Dissuasion” where they are given treatment.

Over the last decade the approach appears to have worked in the country, with João Castel-Branco Goulão Portugal’s national drug coordinator saying the country has seen reductions in H.I.V. infections and in overdoses.

So what about the rest of the world?

Czech Republic

Similarly to Portugal possession of drugs is illegal, but possession of small quantities treated as an “administrative offence”, punishable with a fine.

Unlike Portugal levels of cannabis use in the Czech Republic are among the highest in Europe.

While criminal penalties for possession were only introduced as recently as 2010 the report concluded that worse health outcomes were observed after drug possession was criminalised, and there was no evidence of reduced use.

Uruguay

In 2013 Uruguay became the first country in the world to full legalise marijuana. It is now the first nation in the world to break the International Convention on Drug Control, and legislate for the production, sale and consumption of cannabis.

10 per cent of the country’s prison population was for small drug offences – and 44 per cent of all drugs cases were for people detained for holding less than 10g of drugs.

Uruguayans will now be allowed to buy up to 40g a month from pharmacies, join a cannabis club which grows the plant for its members of grow up to six plants themselves.

The Government here says the change in the law is an effort to separate the marijuana market from more problematic drug use. This includes the smoking of “pasta base” - a cheap derivative of cocaine that is highly addictive when smoked and has become endemic in some poor communities.

However the Uruguayan President Jose Mujica has said the start of legal cannabis sales will be delayed until next year due to "practical difficulties".

Netherlands

Famously a tourist hot-spot for people seeking cannabis from countries with stricter controls substances defined as “soft” drugs, including cannabis, have been effectively decriminalised. Possession remains illegal here but police and courts operate a policy of tolerance.

The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is one of the lowest of the EU. Attempts to crack down on the use of cannabis by tourists have been widely ignored in the country.

However importing and exporting of any classified drug is a serious offence. The penalty can run up to 12 to 16 years if it is for hard drugs with a maximum of 4 years for importing or exporting large quantities of cannabis.

Japan

Japan has the toughest drug laws in the developed world. Its Pharmaceutical Affairs Law bans the production and sale of 68 types of drugs and has a zero-tolerance policy. Criminal sanctions are tougher than in the UK and relatively few people seek treatment.

Some products that are available over the counter as cold and flu remedies are banned and possession of even small amounts of drugs is punishable by lengthy imprisonment.

There are low levels of drug use in Japan but the report notes that it is difficult to decide whether this can be attributed to harsh penalties or a long cultural opposition to drugs and a society where cultural conformity is valued.

USA

In 2012 states in the US - Washington State and Colorado – have legalised the recreational use of cannabis putting them in direct conflict with President Obama’s national drug policy.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow the use of medical marijuana on prescription.

However in Colorado aged over 21 are to be allowed to buy and possess up to an ounce (28g) of cannabis and grow six plants in a private, secure area. The first “25 million raised through taxes on these sales will go towards the building of schools.

In Washington licenses to sell marijuana are issued by the state alcohol control boards and the number of outlets are limited. They can’t be within 1000 feet of a school, playground or library.

China

Drug possession for personal use is technically classified as a minor administrative offense but punishment can be harsh – a 2,000 RMB fine and up to 15 days of administrative detention

The Government can also send people who are deemed to be drug addicts to a compulsory detoxification center for up to three years, plus up to three years' compulsory "community rehabilitation."

In 2013 Guangdong province in the south launched the "Thunder Anti-drug" special action. 97,200 drug users were detained and 47,400 people were sent to compulsory detoxification centers.

Smuggling or transporting or manufacturing 1,000 grams or more of opium and 50 grams of more of heroin can lead to a death sentence.

According to the most recent figures in 2008 there were 1,126,700 registered drug users, 900,000 were using heroin or other opioids.

Ireland

While it has a similar drugs policy to the UK Ireland has been the leading the way on the control of 'legal highs'. In 2010 country has banned all ‘psychoactive’ substances unless specific exemptions are made, as is the case with tea, coffee and alcohol.

Denmark

The country has recently followed the example of Netherlands and Germany and opened “fix rooms” for serious drug addicts where they can safely consume and inject drugs in a supervised environment.

The facilities are on offer to adults with serious addictions can bring their illegal drugs and take them, legally, under the watchful eye of a nurse. The capital Copenhagen opened the first with other cities following suit.

Sweden

Sweden is seen as the toughest zero-tolerance state with regards to drugs in Western Europe.

Both use and possession are illegal. Even minor use can lead to a prison sentence six months although more generally leads to a fine.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports that Sweden has one of the lowest drug usage rates in the Western world, and attributes this to a drug policy that invests heavily in prevention and treatment as well as strict law enforcement.

Although praised by those who back the ‘war on drugs’ approach for its low level of cannabis use of harder drugs is very high a proportion of drug use.

Drug treatment is free of charge and provided through the health care system and the municipal social services.

Peter’s Point of View

For most of the twentieth century a majority of people around the world favoured a hard-line approach to drugs and drug trafficking; lock them up and throw the key away, hang them, shoot them, cut their hands off, were popular catch-cries.

As the drug problem escalated the pro-punishment people called for even tougher sentences, and in many countries politicians responded accordingly, often against the advice of criminologists and addiction experts. Getting the votes was more important than getting it right.

Nathaniel's Bloodline

This writer believes that it is no coincidence that the list of countries that have the death penalty for drug trafficking, are also among the most corrupt countries, politically and in terms of enforcement. Here is the full list of murderous states that kill traffickers, who, incidentally, are themselves mostly addicted victims of other traffickers: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Almost all of these countries enacted their death penalty drug laws during the twentieth century in response to popular demand rather than informed advice. In the case of the USA, the War on Drugs commenced in earnest under that infamous criminal vote-getter, Richard Nixon. That alone should have been enough to tell Americans and the world that the War on Drugs would fail.

Lethal and addictive drugs will never be eliminated entirely, but a totally new approach to this age-old curse could make a significant reduction in the number of new addicts, wrecked lives and drug deaths.

Connect with Peter on Facebook or Twitter

First, governments must recognise that addiction is a health issue rather than a criminal issue. They must stop punishing and start treating. Putting a drug addict in prison will not stop addiction any more than prison or punishment will stop anyone catching a disease or falling ill, because addiction is an illness.

Next, governments must put the dealers out of business by destroying their market. To do that they need to take a leaf out of the colonial history of Australia. Twenty years after the founding of the convict colony, in January 1808, a military coup saw Governor William Bligh arrested and deposed. The military then ran the government for the next two years until the arrival of Governor Lachlan Macquarie with a new military unit. The earlier military had been the power behind the throne, so to speak, right from the arrival of the First Fleet. They also controlled the colony’s commerce including the trade in rum which, in the absence of banknotes and coinage, had become the main instrument of exchange. The rum had a high value and led to widespread drunkenness and addiction. Macquarie imported vast quantities of rum with the intention of flooding the market and making alcohol worthless. The arrival of a large supply of Spanish dollars also helped until English and Australian coins became available. So the ‘Rum Rebellion’ that saw Bligh ousted eventually resulted in the downfall of the military and the powerful and rich John MacArthur. The inscription on Macquarie’s grave in Scotland is ‘Father of Australia.’

But to return to the drug dealers, the answer is simple – flood the market with free drugs, distributed by the government. That’s what Governor Macquarie would have done. The money currently wasted on futile enforcement and imprisonment could then be diverted to treatment of the health issue that it is.

 Highway America