‘At best, controls may have kept the lid on the scale of the market. At worst, they may have exacerbated drug problems.’

These are the words of a report published in October by the independent UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC). Finding that current policies do not address the fact that there will always be a market for drugs, and that prohibition represents bad value spending of tax payer’s money, the report seriously suggests decriminalization as a viable solution.

The war on drugs costs £3bn a year. And despite declining drug use in the UK, its citizens still comprise 380,000 problem drug users. Every year, 2,000 people die from causes relating to drugs.

The European director of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), Annie Machon has observed this losing battle from the front lines. Working in MI5’s counter subversion department on terrorist logistic during the 1990s, Machon liaised closely with HM Revenue and Customs. Colleagues told her that actively looking for drugs in transit was ‘just a drop in the ocean.’ Uncovering and preventing the export and import of narcotics was simply too great a task.

‘It is impossible to stop the free flow of drugs,’ Machon asserts. From human drugs mules making it through airport security checks, to substance movement across deserts on camels through Iran and Central Asia, the international drugs trade is a many headed Hydra – hack one off and another will grow in its place.

‘Can you imagine any other trade worth about 500 billion per annum around the planet being left entirely in the hands of organised criminals?’ asks Machon, with exasperation.

According to UN estimates, there are 50 million regular users world-wide buying heroin, cocaine and other synthetic drugs.

Even David Cameron and Barack Obama have admitted to smoking cannabis as teenagers. When asked if she had ever tried drugs as a student, Machon laughed. ‘I would find it very difficult to find anyone under 60 in this country who hadn’t dabbled.’

The profits reaped from Western party habits, and life-shattering addictions, fund violent criminal gangs and even terrorist organizations, causing untold harm throughout the world.

And at the other side of the transaction, the money to buy drugs is often sourced through lower level criminal activity, from petty theft to armed robbery.

The war on drugs in the UK is a battle of attrition, one that has been waged for over forty years. The opening salvo was the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. For many, this is a set of laws which sentences people who should be rehabilitated.

‘At the moment we already have the associated problems (of drug addiction),’ says Machon. ‘The thing is that because it is illegal, people are frightened to go and get help.’

The penalties are severe. In the UK, possession of a Class A drug, such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy or LSD, is punishable by a seven year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine.

Machon points to the method instituted by the Swiss government when faced with the high criminality, increasing numbers of drug-related deaths and AIDS epidemic of a massive heroin problem in 1994. ‘They made it legal in clinics.’ The change was a ‘win-win’ for Switzerland. ‘No-one has died of an overdose in Switzerland since then.’

As for ‘soft’ drugs, being caught with cannabis, a Class B substance, could land you in jail for five years. So if the 6.8% of people aged 15 to 64 in England who use cannabis were arrested and charged, the prison population could be swelled by well a good million or two.

Law can hardly be enforced on that kind of scale, and cannabis offences are low on police priorities. Yet 42,000 people are sentenced under cannabis laws every year, and 160,000 are given warnings. Many people have questioned whether this 41 year old legislation, and the money spent on policing it, still makes sense.

Smoking a joint may be a socially accepted past time amongst millions. But the mind- altering experiences of cannabis and other drugs have been linked to a number of long term mental health problems, which include schizophrenia and depression. Some people worry that decriminalization would encourage more people to experiment with drugs, potentially causing an epidemic of psychological disorders.

‘We need to be aware of the harm issues inherent in it,’ says Machon, highlighting the reductions in smoking that have come with better education about its damaging effects. But for her, drug taking is a matter of personal freedom, a choice to be made by individuals.

Illegality still fails to put people off choosing to use drugs, or prevent access to them. Machon believes that many children would confirm that it is easier to get hold of cannabis than it is to buy alcohol or cigarettes.

‘At the moment it’s a free for all,’ she says, ‘What we’re discussing is strict regulation.’ She thinks that only by legalizing and strictly regulating the sale of drugs can you properly impose age limitations (although it could be argued that the age limitations used to regulate alcohol consumption are easily dodged by savvy sixteen year olds anyway).

As the report by UKPDC shows, the arguments put forward by groups like LEAP and UKPDC are gathering legitimacy.

‘More and more senior politicians have realised that talking about the war on drugs is not a third rail which will electrocute them,’ says Machon. ‘I think there has been a sea change in the tone of the debate. But every day we delay, more innocents are killed around the globe.’

For her, this war is ‘hysterical, it’s hyperbolic and it causes more damage than it stops.’

Bloodshed is an inevitable part of war, and the war on drugs is no different. American intelligence was this year used to justify the shooting down of two suspected drugs planes over Honduras. But it is unclear whether there were actually drugs aboard, and both incidents constituted violations of international law.

And in the six years of US military action in cracking down on supply from Mexico, 62,000 Mexican civilians have been murdered, and 20,000 have disappeared. Civilians are caught between brutally territorial cartels and the apparently indiscriminate authorities.

In 2011, 150,000 Mexicans marched to raise awareness of their plight. And a ‘Caravan for Peace’, made up of Mexican victims caught in the cross-fire, travelled through the US this summer to protest against the continuing violence.

This looks like an increasingly inaccurate and dirty war, a waste of both financial resources and human life.

‘I think it’s just going to get worse,’ sighs Machon. ‘It’s such a lucrative trade…And the kind of violence we’re seeing in South America and North America will transfer into Europe.’

So, strike criminality from drugs use, and remove the drugs trade from criminals. The anti- prohibition argument is an attractive one. Over ten years, LEAP has gathered 80,000 supporters, and is represented by senior law enforcers from ex-intelligence professionals like Machon, to former chief constables. It remains to be seen whether the Home Office will take the UKPDC proposals seriously and ‘loosen up’ drugs laws. But with Portugal leading the way, as the first European country to completely abolish criminal sanctions for possessing drugs in 2001, the decriminalization movement is gathering pace.

It was a Friday, I was feeling the 5^th Week blues heavily and was settling down to a seven hour overdue essay with a large whisky. Nothing untoward…

Then some intolerable racket began outside my window which overlooks the beautiful St Peter’s College. A bunch of lefty types with very good but utterly misplaced intentions were shouting and screaming as if it was still 2010.

Let me make this clear, I don’t disagree per se with them: I was kettled on Westminster Bridge and charged by Riot Police at the Fees Protests in 2010. So this is not written from the perspective of someone who disagrees with their basic intentions. What I do disagree with though is the lumbering, ham-fisted and blundering way they express them (and most of all the fact they chose to do so under my window).

For the sake of all that is holy and good, the slogan “Students and Workers, Unite and Fight”? What? The working man is so keen to subsidise our opulent Oxford education is he? Incurring another £6,000 per year in debt to be repaid gradually is the same as job losses, benefit cuts and working poverty? What sort of bourgeois imbecility is this? It’s bourgeois bullshit, that’s what it is.

Let’s move onto another of their mantras: “Willets, Willets, Willets… Scum, Scum, Scum” Mr Willets was at St Peter’s to talk about ‘Politics and Language’ –  I wonder what he and the audience, keen to engage in reasonable debate made of this. After all, we know that the best way to affect change in a democracy is to refer to people you don’t like as ‘scum’ while they talk about something utterly unrelated.

People often criticise our dubious coalition government as ‘a stuck record’ of austerity that doesn’t work – I would say that if this is the alternative then the Coalition is doing pretty well: There were all of eight chants which they repeated ad nauseum. Stuck records had nothing on these self-important ‘middle class guilt’ protestors who thought they would interrupt my evening with their moral hand-wringing and repetitive, nonsense, forced rhymes.

Their chants were set to the tunes of nursery rhymes – a fitting genre for the content which was childish and facile at best. Now I am opposed to financial disincentives to education for anyone who wishes to access it, but the argument cannot be expressed in rhyme or through a megaphone without sounding like a rabid, unbalanced person who would try to avoid in the street.

They’ve been outside my window for over an hour now and show no sign of stopping. Now they’re demanding Willets give them back ‘their fucking money’ – the money THEY HAVEN’T PAID HIM YET. They are deluded and making me ashamed of my political views. They’ve also given me a headache.

Please, no ‘ifs and buts’, I’ve got an essay to write. Now shut up and behave like it is 2012 and protest about something that matters.

Facts of the Matter

It was neither bribing British lawyers nor Bunga Bunga parties that finally landed Silvio Berlusconi in gaol this week. The notorious billionaire who has dominated Italian politics for 20 years was convicted of tax fraud on a massive scale through his Mediset media empire. He can wave his political career goodbye, agree most commentators. Berlusconi has been banned from public office for three years and must pay 10 million euros in damage. And the ex-PM has also been sentenced to four years in prison for his nasty ‘criminal tendency’.

Slippery Giuseppe

Good luck with that, said the Sunday Tele- graph. Berlusconi has wriggled out of every charge against him to date, mainly by allowing each case to drag on so long that they eventually expire under the statute of limitations. The’Teflon-coated’ scoundrel is going to make two appeals, both of which could take years. ‘Mr Berlusconi will never see the inside of a prison.’

National Heart Stealer wanted

John Hooper in the Guardian agrees. But nev- ertheless, the events that occurred in Milan last week matter for Italian politics. Berlusconi’s corrupt and floundering right-wing PdL party has been falling in the polls for over a year. The conviction of the party’s founder for tax fraud could be the final nail in its coffin. And then what, asks Guy Dinmore in the Financial Times. The Democratic party looks unlikely to emerge unhurt from its ‘brusing primaries’ in which the Leftists will be pit- ted against moderates. Two such uninspiring parties could lead to an inconclusive election result next year and one which is even more rule by unelected technocrats: ‘good for markets, but hardly for democratic accountability’

Izzy Westbury – Yes

It’s easy to get caught up in the hype of any big election cycle, but the US elections are like no other. Vicious publicity campaigns, widely televised debates, and a commanding presence in world affairs (whether we like it or not) mean that the US elections are the most anticipated the world over. But is there any real substance behind this fanfare? Does it really matter who wins and who loses? The answer is a resounding yes.

First let’s look at the impact within the US. Obama’s universal healthcare system is an obvious place to start. Romney isn’t a fan, as he has made clear from the outset, and he wanted to do his best to reverse some of the key areas of this policy. Had he been President, his success or otherwise would depend on the make-up of the Senate and the House, but with big insurance companies already preparing their lobbies, a lot of time and energy would undoubtedly have been channelled into this particular policy area. A victory for Romney would have most certainly mattered to millions of Americans whose insurance plans would have changed overnight – and healthcare, surely, matters to everyone?

The economy was the other defining feature of the US elections, with taxes, the debt ceiling and bank bailouts grabbing the headlines. The short-term consensus is that it didn’t matter much who wins or loses, but if we look at the long-term differences, then it’s a whole new picture. Obama and Romney had contrasting plans on how to get the US out of recession. One advocated increased spending and high taxes; the other wanted lower taxes and reduced regulations. Whether Obama’s will work is yet to be seen, but either way their plans strike a startling contrast with effects that will resonate among every American and beyond. Remember, the 2008 mortgage crisis started in the US, and you can’t say that that didn’t affect a few more people than Americans themselves.

I’ve barely space to touch on other key issues that would have been dealt with completely differently by Obama and Romney: military spending, civil rights and the environment (one key area often neglected in US politics).

These domestic differences aside, the fact remains that globally, the USA is still the dominant power. For the UK in particular, the US is our most important political and trading partner, and we shouldn’t underestimate the symbolic effect of a strong relationship between the leaders of both countries (Mr Leader anyone?).

Ultimately each candidate had very different paths they wanted to lead America down, and we can’t honestly believe that this didn’t mean anything.

Sarika Sharma – No

The time to be on the edge of our seats for a US election is over, because the time for subscribing to the myth of American exceptionalism is over. Thanks to its poor leadership, the rest of the world can no longer blindly follow the US, the country responsible for the global banking crisis and two major wars that resulted in primarily civilian casualties. The lofty days of the New Deal and Cold War leadership are gone: this is a new epoch.

The US was a superpower that claimed global hegemony on a political, economic and moral basis. But it is now in decline, and time is running out. Though it remains the largest economy in the world, growth is stagnating and unemployment is at a record high. Its grip on global economic power will soon be usurped by the likes of China, India and Brazil. Britain has taken a lead by distancing its self from the US and, already, many nations are seeking to do business with China and invest in the potential of Africa.

The US is held up as the cornerstone of the world’s democratic society, but its moral high ground in global politics is unfounded. Liberty and democracy are not evident in America’s political and election process. It doesn’t matter how the majority of US voters vote: democracy is stunted by the two-party stranglehold. Other candidates who try to participate, like the Greens, are excluded. Then there’s the sheer cost, estimated at $6 billion, which enables corporations to have candidates under their thumbs. Finally, consider the fact that no matter how slim the majority, all electoral votes in a state are given to the winning candidate. How far can an election result matter under those circumstances?

‘Obama is not the saintly polar opposite of Romney’ Many believe that victory for Obama will mean more of the same, while Romney would mean that the US veers down a more conservative road. Actually the candidates differ very little in their policies. When you take a closer look, Obama is not the saintly polar opposite of Romney. He is also strongly allied with big business and against trade unionist and labour agendas. And on international issues that really matter, Obama’s record on civil liberties and environmental policies are disappointing to say the least, lagging far behind European nations. Is he as far removed from Romney in these areas as he claims? That is not to say there is anything wrong with taking an interest in the US elections. Obama’s victory speech alone was worth watching for his blockbuster oratory. But let’s not over-inflate the importance of this event: these elections don’t matter as much as everyone would like them to.

On Tuesday polls open for the OUSU elections. Rafts of candidates are standing for coveted positions in the student union, and we’re all invited to help pick which smiley-faced do-gooders go where. But even though it only takes about 40 seconds to go online and vote, most of us (82% last year) won’t bother.

To the extent that OUSU rests in our consciousness at all it is associated with three things: incessant emails, free condoms and David J. Townsend, in that order. Nothing much can change that, though perhaps if David J. Townsend just let us call him ‘Dave’ we might cultivate more of a cuddly affinity to the place.

This year’s contenders for President are promising to change that. Izzy Westbury’s tagline, ‘refreshOUSU’ has a certain ring to it, but it’s not at all realistic – and she knows it. The truth is that the fierce apathy students will once again show is entirely rational. That is because we are not one student body, but several (46 to be precise). Oxford is not a homogeneous mass with the student union at its centre; rather, to borrow a phrase from Edmund Burke, it consists in ‘little platoons’. It is in the confines of college – that lovely space where social and academic life are messily integrated – where most of our problems arise and are then solved.

The collegiate Oxford system dooms OUSU to irrelevance. OUSU is to students what the EU is to the British. We’re totally ignorant of what happens there, though vaguely suspicious that some kind of black magic is going on, and treat enthusiasts with a mix of amusement and condescension. To push the analogy explicitly, we don’t want to be ruled (represented) from Brussles (Worcester Road – OUSU HQ) because ‘we already have our own Parliament (JCR) thank you very much!’

It doesn’t help that Oxford is replete with clubs, societies and journals that suck away energy from the official student union. Proud institutions like the Oxford Union and OUDS who long pre-date OUSU dominate university life. Consequently OUSU is a shell. It functions in the shadows, rarely coming into contact with students (the one exception is RAG, its charity arm).

This is not to say that we don’t need OUSU. Indeed its foundation is instructive in why we do need it. In 1961, the University Proctors banned the then-weekly magazine Isis from publishing reviews of lectures. Students resisted, but lacked a body through which to represent themselves to the university. OUSU was born out of that need, and it continues to fight our corner today. But it will always fail to capture of imagination or, save extraordinary circumstances, touch our lives.

How does Russia see itself in the world today?

Vladimir Putin’s sees himself on an historical mission to restore Russian greatness. His intention isn’t to bring back the Soviet Union; rather he wants Russia to play a leading role on the world stage, as it did during the Cold War. He wants to challenge, as he sees it, US hegemony – hence Russia’s stance on Syria

Is Russia’s suspicion of the West justified?

No. After 13 years in power Putin has grown increasingly detached from reality. He is convinced the unprecedented street protests against his rule aren’t due to popular discontent but are an American plot. More and more Putin lives in a world of fantasy and KGB paranoia.

Notwithstanding recent demonstrations, what explains the persistence of Putin’s popular appeal?

During his first two presidential terms Putin tapped into a mood of popular unhappiness with the 1990s, when capitalism impoverished many Russians and the country lost self-respect. Third time round he has alienated educated voters in Moscow and St Petersburg. The provinces are dissatisfied too

What opposition, if any, does Putin face within the Russian government?

Many political analysts believe the Kremlin is divided into two rival factions: hardline nationalists or ‘siloviki’ who favour state control and ‘liberals’ who want greater economic integration with the West. In reality there are few ideological differences. The elite’s key concern is to hold on to its assets.

Is ‘authoritarian capitalism’, as you describe the system in Putin’s Russia,working?

No. The system works for a few beneficiaries at the top, who have become billionaires. But most of the country has seen only modest improvements in living standards. The Russian countryside is dying. Young talented Russians are leaving. Putin has no fresh ideas. Russia faces stagnation similar to the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev.