Externalities

This is the pinnacle of mankind’s achievements

Sun, 12 May 2013 23:07:15 +0100

This is the pinnacle of mankind’s achievements

"If it’s in the news, don’t worry about it. By definition, news is something that almost never..."

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:07:00 +0100

“

If it’s in the news, don’t worry about it. By definition, news is something that almost never happens.

…It feels insensitive to say it so close to the tragedy, but it’s true. What people should worry about are things so common that they’re no longer news. That’s what kills people. Terrorism is so rare, it’s hardly a risk worth spending a lot of time worrying about.

”

- Well put: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/16/if-you-are-scared-they-win-if-you-refuse-to-be-scared-they-lose/

Some rough stats:

Aircraft crash deaths per day: 3

Aircraft pollution deaths per day: 27

Mining deaths per day: 33 (around half in coal mines)

Deaths caused by terrorism globally per day: 36 (over 75% of these in the Middle East and South Asia)

Global deaths from extreme weather events per day: 77

Americans killed by gun crime per day: 87

War deaths globally per day: 151

Deaths from earthquakes per day: 172

Car crash deaths per day: 3,200

Deaths from AIDS per day: 4,900

Deaths caused by smoking per day: 13,700

Deaths from air pollution per day: 16,400

Deaths of children aged 0-5 per day from pneumonia, diarrhea, malnutrition, malaria and other diseases, mostly preventable: 19,000

They’re all tragic (though we might care about some age groups more than others, and the risk varies), but these are important numbers for deciding which issues deserve the most money, time and thought.

Large scale whole-genome sequencing coming to the UK

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:26:31 +0100

I completely missed this in December, but it’s a really remarkable sign of things to come. 100,000 full genomes are to be sequenced within the NHS over the next 5 years (if all goes to plan). I think that’s more full human genomes than the total sequenced worldwide since 2000. “A revolution is approaching”.

Prime Minister David Cameron [announced] plans to transform cancer treatment in England with new proposals to introduce high-tech DNA mapping for cancer patients and those with rare diseases, within the NHS.

The UK will be the first country in the world to introduce the technology within a mainstream health system, with up to 100,000 patients over three to five years having their whole genome – their personal DNA code –sequenced. […] The Government has earmarked £100 million. […]

When the human genome was fully sequenced for the first time in 2000, the project had cost approximately £500 million.

We will soon be able to sequence a human genome for less than £1,000, and the cost is likely fall further. As a result, experts believe a revolution in the way healthcare is delivered is approaching, with personalised medicines and individualised treatments becoming available for the first time.

The sequencing of 100,000 patients’ genomes in centres capable of sequencing DNA at speed in the UK will further drive down the cost.

David Cameron urged to take 'now or never' step on drugs reform

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:13:54 +0000

David Cameron urged to take 'now or never' step on drugs reform:

Cross-party committee says prime minister should set up royal commission on Britain’s failing drug laws

Full PDF report available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/184/184.pdf

Leveson encourages linking to sources: Excellent news!

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:13:29 +0000

For me, the details of a press standards code are as important as the overarching structure of press regulation. Encouraging online outlets simply to link to the scientific and social policy studies they talk about would, I think, be a big improvement. It gives more power to the reader, at the expense of the media’s ability to spin facts how it likes - I don’t see how that can be a bad thing or the beginning of some Orwellian nightmare.

The Executive Summary says:

“A new regulatory body should consider encouraging the press to be as transparent as possible in relation to the sources used for stories, including providing any information that would help readers to assess the reliability of information from a source and providing easy access, such as web links, to publicly available sources of information such as scientific studies or poll results. This should include putting the names of photographers alongside images. This is not in any way intended to undermine the existing provisions on protecting journalists’ sources, only to encourage transparency where it is both possible and appropriate to do so.”

What the Cabinet said about drugs policy (in 1970)

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:46:44 +0100

Over at The Poison Garden is a preliminary fisking of Peter Hitchens’s upcoming drugs policy book and its promotion. That led me to track down a fascinating document of Cabinet Conclusions. The date is 26th February 1970 and the topic is “the forthcoming Misuse of Drugs Bill”. The Home Secretary is James Callaghan, and this is a few months before Wilson loses the election to the Tories (who - very unusually - see that the previous government’s bill becomes law). In another document (the memorandum) Callaghan states that his own view is that the three-classifications idea should be ignored, and that possession of any controlled drug should have a maximum sentence of 7 years.

Here’s the drugs discussion in its entirety, with emphasis added by me (note how easily managing public opinion is put ahead of rationality and considered expert judgement):

“The Cabinet had before them a memorandum by the Home Secretary on the Misuse of Drugs Bill (C (70) 34).

The Home Secretary said that the Home Affairs Committee had recently considered the range of penalties to be provided in the forthcoming Misuse of Drugs Bill. Existing legislation on this subject distinguished in principle between the offences of simple possession of controlled drugs and trafficking in them. But, under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, which dealt with heroin, cocaine, morphine and cannabis, the two offences had been treated on the same basis and the same penalty of ten years’ imprisonment applied to each. Under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, which dealt with amphetamines, LSD and other hallucinogens, possession was punishable by two years’ imprisonment; and there was no separate offence of trafficking. The Committee had agreed that the new Bill should continue to distinguish between the offences of possession and trafficking; but they had also approved a division of drugs into three categories, each of which would attract a separate and appropriate penalty. But if—as was clearly right—the penalties for trafficking should be increased (e.g. in the case of the most dangerous drugs, from the existing limit of ten years’ imprisonment to a new limit of 14 years), it followed that the penalties for simple possession of the less serious drugs should be reduced; and the Committee had recommended that on this basis the penalty for possession of cannabis might be curtailed from ten years to three years. Further reflection, however, had suggested that public opinion might well regard a change of this kind as indicating too lenient an attitude on the part of the Government towards the potentially dangerous practice of drug-taking; and the Cabinet would wish to consider whether the political damage which the Government might suffer if this impression gained ground was sufficiently serious to justify a modification of the terms of the Bill before it was introduced.

If so, one of two courses could be adopted. The first would preserve the three categories of controlled drugs but would increase the penalties for simple possession of drugs in the two most serious categories from three years’ imprisonment to five years in the case of cannabis and from five years to seven years in the case of heroin, cocaine, etc. The second approach, which on the whole he advised, would be to abandon the distinction between categories of drugs entirely and to provide single maximum penalties for possession and trafficking respectively. The former might be either ten years or seven years’ imprisonment; the latter would be 14 years in all cases.

In discussion, there was general agreement that it would be right to maintain the distinction between the offences of possession and trafficking and to establish a more flexible and discriminating classification of the various categories of drugs. But the proposed reduction of the penalty for simple possession of cannabis from ten years’ imprisonment to three years would be liable to be severely criticised by public opinion, especially by parents and teachers. The impact of this apparent concession to the permissive tendencies in society would not be offset by the increase in the penalty for possession in the case of other drugs (e.g. LSD); and the Government might be at considerable political risk as a result. It would be very unwise to underestimate the degree of public concern on this subject and the ease with which the Governments intentions might be misinterpreted.

On the other hand, the proposals as approved by the Home Affairs Committee were the result of very careful consideration and reflected the considered judgment of expert opinion. Of the two alternative courses which the Home Secretary had suggested the second would entail a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for simple possession of cannabis; and a sentence of such severity was wholly unrealistic in relation to the offence as committed by, for example, a schoolchild. Moreover, the penalty actually imposed would lie at the discretion of the court; and, since it was most unlikely that the court would in fact deal so harshly with an offence of this kind, the law itself would be liable to fall into disuse and disrepute. The political risks of proceeding with the proposals as approved by the Home Affairs Committee could be exaggerated; and in any event it would be wrong, in a matter of this kind, to subordinate the requirements of humanity and equity to political considerations.

The Prime Minister, summing up the discussion, said that it appeared that the Cabinet were in favour, by a small majority, of proceeding with the proposals recommended by the Home Affairs Committee. But it might help to allay public disquiet if the proposed penalties for possession of controlled drugs were increased to some extent—e.g. to seven years (instead of five years) for the most serious drugs and to five years (instead of three years) for drugs in the second category, including cannabis. The Cabinet agreed that the Bill should go forward on this basis.

The Cabinet—

Invited the Home Secretary to arrange for the early introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Bill on the basis indicated by the Prime Minister in his summing up of their discussion.”

PS If anyone has or can find any of the relevant Home Affairs Committee documents, please do let me know!

OH NOES! IS LION!

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:45:03 +0100

OH NOES! IS LION!

They went to the moon. The actual moon. “Twelve men have...

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:51:43 +0100

They went to the moon. The actual moon.

“Twelve men have walked on the Moon – all American – of whom eight are still living.” The youngest is almost 77.

15 Old Photographs That Prove the World Used to Be Insane

Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:21:00 +0100

15 Old Photographs That Prove the World Used to Be Insane:

Be sure to click through to p2.

Astonishing.

New paper shows drugs classifications are wrong

Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:14:00 +0100

Following on from the work of David Nutt and others - originally for the government’s own advisory panel - is another paper trying to compare the harms of different drugs. As with previous papers, and available at the British Medical Journal, this one’s not good news for our current classification system or the distinction between legal and illegal drugs.

One of the strengths of this study is the large number of experts involved. Two hundred and ninety-two addiction multidisciplinary experts across Scotland were involved making it the largest national panel to be involved in this type of study. [Addiction community psychiatric nurses were the largest group, making up 46% of the experts]

[…]

The main result is that heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth, alcohol and cocaine were in the top five places for all [9] categories of harm, with LSD, ecstasy, methylphenidate, magic mushrooms and cannabis in the bottom five places for all categories of harm. The hierarchy of harm when judged by the experts did not correlate with the hierarchy used currently by the Misuse of Drugs Act.

[…]

This study demonstrates, similar to both of Nutt’s studies, that the legality of a substance does not reflect its potential for harm.

The burgeoning evidence of the harm caused by tobacco and alcohol would also suggest that from a scientific perspective these drugs are currently misclassified and that a new method for ranking drug harm, which could guide policies and public health strategies, is required, with many in the scientific and medical community feeling that this should be separated from the criminal justice system and associated penalties.

Any new system would also have to address the issue of personal choice and responsibility in using substances and examine the context in which they are being used. Increasing public awareness of the potential for harm of all the drugs examined whether legal or illegal and finding ways of reducing the demand for psychoactive substances should be the focus rather than imposing harsh penalties for their use.

These methods of comparing harms aren’t perfect. One issue with this paper is that there’s no distinction between harms intrinsic to the drug and additional harm caused by prohibition. Whatever you think of legalisation, a regulated market certainly wouldn’t see heroin contaminated with anthrax, for example.

But these methods are certainly better than the politics and misinformed hysteria that have created the UK’s classification system.

Hopefully this and further improvements will help lead to a more sensible system, but it’s clear that there are also individual reclassifications that could help. The ACMD might next year recommend that Ketamine should be moved up to Class B. Based on this paper, that might be reasonable. But it may also be an opportunity to change - or at least discuss - other classifications, especially those of ecstasy and cannabis (in both cases Labour ignored ACMD advice), as well as LSD and magic mushrooms.

This is not entirely academic. Assuming some people listen to advice from the Home Office, information not based in fact promotes poor decisions and is a danger to people’s health. Think of the children…

Well-earned celebration at NASA JPL. Touchdown on Mars and first...

Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:14:04 +0100

Well-earned celebration at NASA JPL. Touchdown on Mars and first photos from Curiosity. #proudtobehuman

The Daily Mail Song

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:50:55 +0100

The Daily Mail Song

If the transforming robot wasn’t innovative enough for...

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:55:13 +0100

If the transforming robot wasn’t innovative enough for you, how about a “three story self propelled Victorian house”?

Morphex: everyone’s favourite transforming hexapod...

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:52:22 +0100

Morphex: everyone’s favourite transforming hexapod robot!

The main goal of this project was to make a hexapod robot that could transform into a sphere shape and back. In “sphere mode” the robot should be able to roll freely like a ball.

I’m sure a peaceful future full of friendly ~~battle~~ droids awaits.

Petition on abortion reform

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:09:55 +0100

Petition on abortion reform:

I see no reason to disagree with this or this. Sign via the link above.

kohenari: If You Don’t Talk To Your Kids About Philosophy, Who...

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:06:14 +0100

kohenari:

If You Don’t Talk To Your Kids About Philosophy, Who Will?

HT: Cori Curtis.

Mayoral candidate misleads by prioritising education

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:23:31 +0100

Siobhan Benita is one of the 7 candidates standing for Mayor of London, and I thought I’d check her out given how difficult it is to decide which of Boris and Ken is less awful (vote Brian Paddick!).

Her website starts by saying:

I am not a party politician and won’t waste my time - or yours - fighting tired political battles. I am in touch with Londoners and understand their day to day concerns.

I will be an inclusive mayor, working for all Londoners. I will make education a priority, improve the transport network, increase opportunities for people and businesses, and build better and safer neighbourhoods.

Education is at the top of her policy list:

Make education a priority:

Work for every child to have an excellent primary school place

Make the transition to secondary school fair and sensible

Appoint an Education Commissioner to raise standards

Appoint a Young Mayor for London and create a new youth assembly

Now, I think education is the most important policy area there is. But it’s simply not part of the Mayor of London’s job. To quote from londonelects.org.uk

The Mayor of London is responsible for areas within:
• transport
• policing
• housing
• planning and development
• culture
• economic development and regeneration
• health inequalities
• fire and emergency planning
• environmental issues.

The Mayor and the London Assembly do not have responsibility for: council housing, schools, social services, hospitals, street cleaning, parking permits, or birth, death & marriage certificates. These services are all provided by your local council, government, or other organisations.

And to quote from The Guardian:

As mayor he has a role over skills training and employment in the capital but no official remit for under-16 education.

Boris Johnson has tried to have some input into educational strategy, and you could argue, as he has, that the Greater London Authority should have more of a role in this area. But I won’t be voting for anyone whose manifesto priorities are in an area they’d have no competence over.

EU acts to end 'rip off' roaming charges

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:16:00 +0100

EU acts to end 'rip off' roaming charges:

By July this year mobile firms will be forced to lower the prices of making a call or downloading data abroad. […]

Currently, the limit on what can be charged for making a call is about 30p and sending a text 9p, but there is no cap on what companies can charge per megabyte of data. Under the new rules the cost of sending a text will fall to 7.5p.

Well that’s interesting because I’m on O2 ‘Pay & Go’ temporarily and they charge me 12p per text! That’s legal as I’m not abroad - I’m just a humble long-standing O2 customer wishing to send texts domestically (often to other O2 numbers). It’s fair to say they’d still be making a profit if they charged me 7.5p. I know they don’t want people paying as they go but this is just absurd.

Edit: Orange, Vodaphone and T-Mobile also charge 12p per text. So much for competition.

Edit 2: Giffgaff charges 6p per text, and Tesco 10p, even though both of these operate on the O2 network and Giffgaff is actually owned by O2. 3 charge 11p.

The ACMD and decriminalisation

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:39:19 +0100

The Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug policy is still in progress but the written submissions to it have now been released. There are many excellent submissions (and flawed but interesting ones such as the Home Office’s), but that of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs deserves special attention.

Its final point relates to “Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma, as recommended by the Select Committee in 2002 (The Government’s Drugs Policy: Is It Working?, HC 318, 2001- 02) and the Justice Committee’s 2010 Report on justice reinvestment (Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94, 2009–10).”

Criminal Justice interventions which involve young adult drug users gaining a criminal record or a custodial sentence may not be the best use of public resources, given the ‘life limiting effect’ or negative impact this may have on a young adults future employment and life prospects.

The majority of drug users are late teenagers or young adults, living in urban areas with men being twice as likely to use as women. The 2010/11 British crime survey showed that levels of ANY drug use are higher amongst the 16 to 19 yr olds (23%), with levels of Class A drug use highest amongst 20-24yr olds (8.2%). Men are also twice as likely to use drugs as women.

In the British Crime Survey 2011 respondents were asked where they acquired their drugs, over half (53%) of drug users said the obtained them from a friend or member of their family, over a fifth (21.4%) from someone else they knew and 21.8% said they got them from a dealer.

Young adults (particularly young urban and Black Minority and Ethnic (BME) men) are disproportionately impacted upon by criminal justice drug interventions. Their lives may be negatively impacted by being caught in the criminal justice system for simple possession offences, drug dealing amongst ‘friends’ etc causing a disproportionate, negative impact on their lives.

Diversion
In responding to the Government’s drug strategy consultation in 2010 the ACMD considered the question, “Do you think the criminal justice system should do anything differently when dealing with drug misusing offenders?” The ACMD believes that there are further opportunities to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs for personal use (in cases where there were no additional criminal offences). The ACMD considers that such approaches might be more effective in reducing drug-related harms to individuals and society, reduce repeat offending and reduce the costs to the criminal justice system.

The ACMD propose potential diversion into drug education/awareness courses (similar to those for speeding drivers) or possibly other, more creative civil punishments e.g. temporary loss of a driving licence.

The ACMD recognise that such a diversion proposal would require extensive consultation with education and treatment agencies and support from the police, probation and criminal justice stakeholders before this could be formalised but there is evidence of considerable support for such diversion measures already e.g. ACPO.

The ACMDs proposal is in the context of an awareness that a proportion of offenders - primarily for possession of cannabis - are already dealt with by way of a Police caution issued on the basis of the offender’s admission of guilt of a criminal offence. The ACMD consider that some form of drug education / awareness / treatment might better reduce drug-related harms than increased penetration into the criminal justice system. The ACMD state that if there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc.) then the appropriate criminal justice procedures and sentences would normally apply, which could include community sentences and imprisonment. In June 2011, the ACMD responded to the Sentencing Guideline Council’s Consultation on Drug Offences Guidelines in similar vein.

The ACMD is aware that, subsequent to its submission, it has been incorrectly suggested by some that this was a proposal for decriminalisation. The ACMD was, and still is, clear that its suggestions relate to the discretionary diversion of certain offenders from further penetration into the Criminal Justice System, diverting them into an alternative community-based intervention that may be more effective and more cost effective. This is not decriminalisation because the ACMD consider that the possession of drugs is a criminal offence and should remain a criminal offence.

I hope the committee will respond to the ACMD’s suggestions. Even though the council might not consider this to be ‘decriminalisation’, the differences are smaller than one might think.

‘Decriminalisation’ is a word that’s caused considerable confusion. Not only can it be used to refer to legalisation of supply, but even when just discussing possession it can refer to a large range of policies.

Portugal has de jure decriminalisation of possession. But it’s still an offence, and has to be under international law (for now). Users are sent through what could almost be described as a parallel criminal justice system, with the power to fine users, but which usually uses its discretion and does not (cf what the ACMD recommend). I’ve spoken to lawyers who are in fact concerned about a non-judicial body handing out sanctions, and who point out that the UK has no framework for administrative offences.

Then there’s de facto decriminalisation. In the Netherlands, for example, cannabis possession (and purchase from coffee shops) is still illegal, but is “tolerated”. Despite what the ACMD say above, most people would consider this decriminalisation.

Similarly, the ‘tolerance’ can exist at the level of the judicial system rather than the police. One option would be to simply have a presumption that the Crown Prosecution won’t prosecute for simple possession, on the basis that it’s not in the public interest.

A final example is the Mandatory Cautioning Scheme recommended by the Law Commission in New Zealand (which has a similar framework to the UK). If I recall correctly, it suggested that those caught in possession of an illicit drug would be given a caution and educational/treatment information. The number of cautions one could receive before being prosecuted would depend on the class of drug - e.g. 3 cautions for Class C - thereby insuring that resources are directed mostly at users of the most dangerous drugs (if the classification system is sensical). This, incidentally, is not too different from the UK’s current warning system for cannabis. One of the reasons given for the NZ proposal was that it took out the element of chance (or discrimination) that is the flipside of police/judicial discretion. Again, this system wouldn’t technically be ‘decriminalisation’ but for most users would actually involve fewer repercussions than Portugal’s de jure decriminalisation.

As with legal regulation of drugs, there are a huge range of policy options within prohibition. A consensus is emerging that more severe punishment of users at best achieves nothing, but trying to categorise part of this continuum of options as “decriminalisation” is not particularly easy or helpful.

James Cameron begins Mariana Trench deep-sea dive

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:05:30 +0100

James Cameron begins Mariana Trench deep-sea dive:

Film director James Cameron has begun an attempt to become the first person in 50 years to visit the deepest part of the ocean.

Cameron is travelling 11km (7 miles) down to the Mariana Trench in the western Pacific, where he hopes to spend six hours exploring and filming.

A manned descent to the trench was last attempted in 1960, by US Navy Lt Don Walsh and Swiss oceanographer Jacques Piccard.

They spent about 20 minutes on the ocean floor but their landing kicked up silt, meaning their view was obscured.

This is only the second manned expedition to this ocean’s deepest depths - the first took place in 1960.

Follow at https://twitter.com/#!/DeepChallenge