Out of the red and into the green?

I recently watched a documentary aired on American network television entitled "Marijuana Inc." that focused on the underground cannabis growing industry in California and it gave me a few ideas about what the UK or other countries can do.

For those unaware, California (and numerous other states in the US) have decriminalised possession of cannabis (this isn't the same as legalisation), and has legalised it for medicinal purposes*. In general the United States seems to be acknowledging that cannabis isn't as big a priority criminally as it used to be. Britain appears to be heading in the opposite direction with January's reclassification to class B against the advice of its own advisers, placing it in the same category as drugs like amphetamines.

The documentary took a detailed look at growers in the 'Emerald Triangle', a tri-state area in northern California that has become synonymous with growing the stuff. And they grow a lot of it! One of the most surprising aspects of this was how much money was in it, estimates said that the sale of cannabis accounted for two-thirds of the local economy.

'Marijuana Inc': A grower in the Emerald Triangle

But, it still isn't legal. Yet.... And that's where a man called Tom Ammiano comes in.

Tom Ammiano, a democrat for the California State Assembly has announced the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act which will legalise cannabis for over 21s. Read the full legislation here. But the gist is that by taxing and regulating it a lot of money will be generated (think nine zeros). All that remains to be seen is if it passes but even if it doesn't it is indicative of movement towards legalisation.

Tom Ammiano

Another benefit is that police will be able to focus on more serious crimes which is never a bad thing. As it is, in the UK, with cannabis becoming a class B, spending on enforcement is likely to increase (otherwise what is the point of reclassification?). The government's reason for moving to class B is down to the increased availability of so called skunk (hybrid strains which contain more THC). This admission from the government struck me as bizarre, since criminalising something has never been a good way of regulating it, just look at how many people were making moonshine when alcohol prohibition was in force in the United States. If the government really wants to know what type of cannabis people are smoking (and lets face it, smokers are going to smoke anyway) then legalisation and control has to at least be considered.

"Twenny Marlboro Greens please, mate"

Legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco make the government a ton of money (official amount!) from taxes that rise every year when the budget is announced. Despite being legal, alcohol and tobacco are pretty damaging both to a persons health and to society. However, they are accepted because people want to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol and those that don't need not worry since taxes on these substances also contribute to society as a whole too.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."

Perhaps it is time western governments in general, who consider themselves the most advanced and progressive in the world, looked at a way of taking the persecution out of free will and used it to benefit both the economy and the well being of others.

* Under federal law it is still illegal

To what extent are government initiatives helping the highly skilled unemployed get back into work

Not much it seems.

Perhaps the newly proposed measures will actually come into effect quickly enough to make an impact on the rising unemployment rate. Either way, Job Centres round the country don't ask you what educational background you have and will only point you in the direction of jobs within a certain industry as opposed to specific roles. They fail to take each individuals circumstances into account which is surely resulting in a less than favourable re-employment rate.

I'm not sure if pairing job centres with recruitment agencies is going to have much of an impact on employment for highly skilled job seekers because there are already 10 applicants to each available position (or there abouts). The agencies are probably making as much money as is possible already in the current market simply because applications are so over subscribed.If the amount of jobs available are decreasing it only stands to reason that recruitment consultants will be losing their jobs too and with a decreased work force and an increased workload (how many applications can one consultant look through each day?) throwing more applicants at them probably isn't advisable

With the ability to fill a position ten times over will additional candidates who arrive with sign on booklet and job seekers diary in hand be treated as a priority? Of course they should, since claiming benefits strains our economy further but then again so does whatever the government is prepared to pay these recruitment agencies for the privelage of their services.

Next time you are at the job centre ask about the options for highly skilled professionals and see what happens. I doubt they'll even know what you are talking about.

If worst comes to worst however, you can always resort to this.

Telling people you work at Tesco makes you unattractive

Times are hard and some people, especially Londoners, are suffering. You may have just lost your job and are struggling to find work, jobseekers allowance won't even cover the bare minimum of expenses and you have but one choice. Get a crappy job for a bit. But where to work, retail is suffering and there is an abundance of more experienced staff out there looking for the same jobs. However, supermarkets are doing pretty damn well these days, in fact they are probably doing better than before. Customers are switching to supermarkets' own brand products to save a few pennies and they are reaping the rewards because of the higher profit margins.

So you found a job at a Tesco, either at the checkout till or at the deli counter (if you prefer!) and you find yourself out for a quick drink with a couple of friends one night. All of a sudden a member of the opposite sex catches your eye, smiles are exchanged and eye contact is made. Assuming a reasonable degree of proficiency in flirting and a mutual attraction, you find yourself conversing with said gorgeocity.

Then something happens...

"Where do you work?", they ask.

All of a sudden a vice grips your insides and you break into a cold sweat. You didn't even see this coming, you were so used to telling people you worked at Lehman Brothers that you didn't even give your new employment status a moment's thought. You could lie, but for the purposes of this hypothetical rendezvous you get the inkling that there could be something special here and you wouldn't want to ruin the possibility of a magical relationship by basing it on a lie. You tell the truth.

"I work at Tesco", you say shamefully.

They stare at you blankly while images of you mucking out the fish counter flash through their mind. You are now both incredibly uncomfortable and the conversation trails off into awkwardness.

What if I was to say you could tell the truth without them responding in such a way? Give this a try, tell someone you work AT Tesco and see their reaction then tell someone you work FOR Tesco and see what happens. All of a sudden you go from shelf stacker to corporate heavyweight. See? I just got you laid.

Tomorrow's article: "The unemployed need love too"

What do you want to be when you grow up?

This is a question I'm sure many of us were asked when we were young and still one we might be asking ourselves now (it's never too late to change career, right?). At the end of the day it is unlikely we are all doing what we wanted to do when we were children, either because we were being unrealistic, hadn't thought it through properly or were just going through a phase of some sort. Despite this there are bound to be a few young boys and girls out there playing doctors and nurses right now who will eventually find themselves in one of those two professions. On the other side of the coin, however, there are going to be a lot of disappointed wannabe cowboys and Indians out there.

Today I had a thought, unrealistic as they may be these visions of our futures we had when we were young have got to tell us something about what drives us and what stimulates us as individuals. Perhaps if I listed them and could find some kind of commonality maybe it would give me a better idea of what I should be doing. Maybe.

Bear in mind, none of the following are particularly inventive:

Astronaut

At about 6 or 7 years old I had my first clear idea of what I wanted to be when I grew up and it was probably the most unrealistic occupation a child can dream of. An astronaut. I guess those of you who know me will know that i'm not writing this post from the International Space Station, so what went wrong? Well, I guess a couple of years past and I got a bit more realistic so I put my astronaut and spaceship toys I had my mother buy me away and moved on to the next great idea.


Fighter pilot

Having dismissed the idea of being an astronaut my brain took the next logical step. I decided to scale down to fighter pilot. Why a fighter pilot and not a regular pilot? Well becuase I got to blow things up and fly really fast of course! Well, yeah guess what, I'm not a pilot either! I had to rule flying out because after a visit to the opticians I was found to be not only short-sighted but also red-green colour blind and apparently being a pilot with those two isn't possible (or there are severe restrictions anyway).

Doctor

We've all been here right? I entertained this idea for a while right up until the point I realised I was looking away from the TV every time Casualty got even the slightest bit gruesome. Forget about real life surgeries being shown on TV, I absolutely cannot watch.

Marine biologist

One of my favourite Seinfeld scenes

After receiving a rather uninspiring Christmas present one year in the form of an illustrated wildlife encyclopedia I accidently stumbled upon the marine section. Fish like the whale shark that grow up to 40 feet, whales, flying fish and a plethora of other strange and wonderful marine life triggered something. I most definately wanted to be a marine biologist. In particular, I wanted to study the deep sea simply because every animal was so different to anything else I had ever seen. It felt like I had discovered aliens on earth. I proceeded to get my out my globe that had terrain markings and values on it and scoured it for the deepest of the worlds oceans. By the way, if you didn't know where the deepest part of the world's oceans is it is the Mariana Trench.

I guess you have gathered by now that I'm not writing this from a submersible under many atmospheres of pressure, simply because I was incredibly bad at biology at school. Like a lot of teaching children experience, I failed to see the connections between what I was learning and what I was interested in and so I chose not to pursue it further.

After racking my brain today for what connections there might be between the various things I wanted to grow up to be, what did I find? Not much to be honest, other than the fact that I wasn't particularly good at setting achievable goals for myself!

I'm gonna turn the question to you now, what did you want to be and are there any porn stars out there?

Big Brother is watching you!

London is the worlds "most watched city" with upwards of 500,000 CCTV cameras. The controversy here is nothing new with many labelling our 'surveilance state' as nothing short of Orwellian. This recent BBC article puts it into perspective. The article goes on to talk about DNA profiling with 7% of the UK population having their DNA sample on record compared to other nations (USA is 0.5%)! Scary stuff.

The main purpose of this post is to question the use of CCTV as a crime fighting measure. The government are adamant that CCTV has a place in crime fighting but have they gone too far? In today's London Metro newspaper an article explained how the use of CCTV was stripping officers of the powers necessary to do their jobs. Although the article explains that this is currently affecting only traffic police, the potential for CCTV to be seen as an infallable form of crime prevention is nothing short of terrifying.

Does CCTV actually fall under the category of proactive policing? It is hard to tell but it certainly distances the populous from both law enforcement and the government as a whole. If used properly as an aid to real policing, the type of policing that is designed to bridge the gap between community and law enforcement, then I'm honestly all for it, but I can't help but feel that CCTV is just one of a long line of measures the government is trying to enforce in a reactionary way (knee-jerk policies from this government are nothing new). Take for example last year's plans to monitor the country's emails and phone conversations (see BBC article).

As a country we need to ask ourselves what we want to achieve in policing, do we want to promote fear as a preventative measure to crime or do we want to tackle the problems in society that lead to crimes being commited? Although the government and the last mayor of London Ken Livingstone made steps to addressing the latter, how committed are they to maintaining that in light of the current economic situation when a camera cost less than a human being?

I guess the question is, are we seeing the first signs of a move towards policing from behind a computer screen? I hope not.