Thursday, May 1, 2025
Blog Page 937

“Tongue in cheek” pyjama palaver at Hertord

0

A “fun” pyjama protest was staged at Hertford College after a third year asked students to stop wear­ing pyjamas to hall.

The post was allegedly addressed to one particular first year, who had worn her pyjamas to dinner in hall on a number of occasions.

Following the third year’s post on the JCR page, a Facebook event was made, which encouraged first years and some second years to turn up to brunch in their pyjamas.

A number of these students then turned up to brunch on Sunday in their pyjamas.

The students in their pyjamas sat on the central table together. How­ever, a first year who took part and who did not wish to be named was keen to emphasise the protest was “tongue in cheek”.

Another first year, who did not wish to be named, told Cherwell, “We understood that the third years were joking, but thought it’d be pretty funny anyway to show our solidarity with the first year who the post was aimed at by arriv­ing en mass at brunch in our paja­mas.

“The Facebook event page we or­ganised it though was full of pro-PJ memes like “PJs out for Harambe” and the whole thing brought the year closer together.”

An anonymous second year, who did not participate in the protest, commented, “Yeah, it was pretty funny when they came in together and sat down, but the hall and the bar are seriously not places for pa­jamas to be worn. Hopefully after this show of defiance it’ll stop.”

Another student commented, “The pyjama brunch was essential­ly an elaborate joke in response to some (likely equally light-hearted) comments within the Hertford JCR page.

“It was by no means a “protest” or “movement” and nor was it a stand against the College, nor an inter-year feud or anything of the sort; it was a one-off, tongue-in-cheek bit of fun, as opposed to anything re­motely important.”

There are technically no guide­lines specifying whether students can or cannot wear pyjamas to hall at Hertford, however students at Brasenose have been advised against wearing pyjamas to hall in the past.

In 2012, laminated notices enti­tled “Hall Manners” around Brasen­ose College warned students to the end the “slovenly practice” of eat­ing breakfast in pyjamas in their dining hall.

It stated, “This practice evinces a failure to distinguish between pub­lic and private spaces in college”, it stated.”

Hertford college are yet to reply to request for comment.

Chancellor announces investment in Oxford-Cambridge rail link

0

In this week’s autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer an­nounced the reintroduction of a rail­way line between Oxford and Cam­bridge, which will run for the first time since 1993.

The railway line, parts of which had been operational since 1845, was investigated by the National Infra­structure Commission in March for the potential of a “knowledge-inten­sive cluster that competes on a glob­al stage” in the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford “corridor”.

In Wednesday’s Autumn State­ment, Philip Hammond announced that the government “accepts the recommendation for the Oxford-Cambridge expressway” and will provide £27m in development funding for the project, along with £100m of funding for the East-West line’s western section, and £10m for the central rail station.

The railway line will have stations between Oxford and Cambridge, in­cluding at Milton Keynes, Bedford, and other towns currently part of the Stagecoach X5 route. The ‘corri­dor’ between Oxford and Cambridge is home to 3.3 million people, and what the NIC named “some of the most productive, successful and fast-growing cities in the United King­dom”.

The infrastructure recommen­dations also include £27m of road-building, which came as part of a wider programme of road and transport investment in the Autumn Statement. The government will spend a total of £135m in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor in the 2018-19 budget, the statement revealed.

The last section of the railway line between the UK’s oldest universi­ties, colloquially named the “Varsity Line”, was decommissioned in 1993 after faster, high-speed trains to Lon­don from Oxford and Cambridge made it faster to travel between the cities via the capital. The investment will join HS2 and other rail projects, which make up a substantial amount of the government’s infrastructure spending in this year’s statement.

The announcement came in the same week that Theresa May an­nounced a £2bn government fund for UK university research, named the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. It will fund research into areas that the UK has the chance to “excel” at, including biotechnology and ro­botics.

May said the money was to ensure that British businesses remain at the cutting edge of scientific discovery and came as part of a modern and ambitious industrial strategy. She said that the new strategy was about “making the most of the historic opportunity we now have to signal an important, determined change”.

Lord John Krebs, Oxford Professor of Zoology and former principal of Jesus College, said that as he under­stood it, the government agency UK Research and Innovation will have “considerable discretion over how the money will be spent, having re­gard for priority areas”.

The investment fund for research will go some way to counterbalance money leaving UK academia as a re­sult of the UK’s departure from the European Union, it is claimed. Jer­emy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, said, “As the UK prepares to leave the European Union, it will also be critical to remain attractive to the international talent that science and innovation require.”

The University of Oxford took 12 percent of its research funding from the European Union last year.

Both investments impact Oxford, which forms a central part of the government’s investment strategy in both business and academic re­search, particularly in the sciences. According to the Prime Minister, it­ will help the UK become part of the “cutting edge of scientific discovery” and to have a “modern and ambi­tious industrial strategy”.

Cuts to local authorities force two Oxford homeless shelters to close

0

Oxfordshire’s two biggest providers of shelter for the homeless are being forced to close due cuts in funding.

Simon House, located on Paradise Street in Oxford, and Julian Housing, based in Oxford and Abingdon, will be ‘decomissioned’ by April 2018. This follows the Government’s £1.5 million cut to homelessness provision across the county.

In response, the County Council and all five county districts resolved to provide a ‘realistic solution despite difficult circumstances’. They pledged £2.94 million over the next three years to counteract government cuts, but this will only provide 141 beds, less than half of the 286 currently available.

The funds from the County Council will be used to create a hostel with 56 beds in Oxford, which will allocate spaces to regions across the country. South Oxfordshire District Council and Vale of White Horse District Council have contributed around £215,000 to the project. Oxford City council will continue to provide its £1.4 million a year funding, but has said that it will be unable to increase its funding in response to Government cuts.

Andrew Smith, the MP for Oxford East, praised the city council for maintaining their support, but criticised the Government’s decision, saying that cuts “make a mockery of ministers’ claims that they want to tackle rough sleeping when they are pulling the rug from under the local providers.”

Simon House, which has beds for 52 people, will be closed over the next year. Julian Housing, which has around 150 beds and is run by Oxford Homeless Pathways, is expected to have its resources dispersed across the county over the following 6 months.

Lucy Faithful House, which provided 61 beds, was forced to close in January 2016 after Oxford Homeless Pathways had 38 per cent of its budget cut. The shelter had been offering support to rough sleepers in Oxford for 30 years.

Oxford City Council and several activist groups have expressed disappointment that the county’s funding has been cut. Claire Dowan, chief executive of charity Oxford Homeless Pathways, told the Oxford Mail the decision to withdraw more than half of the county’s beds for the homeless was a “significant cut” to an “essential and vital service”.

Ms Dowan said she “did not expect” such drastic reductions, and added about a quarter of the charity’s cash currently came from the Government.

She added, “Against a backdrop of ever increasing need in our city for support and accommodation, we are extremely concerned about the on-going decline in government funding and the increasing numbers of rough sleepers.

Oxford City Council expects that the number of rough sleepers in Oxfordshire will increase in the coming years. Concerns that changes to homelessness provision will lead to increased numbers of deaths due to conditions such as hypothermia have been raised by campaigners. Kate Cocker, director of Crisis Skylight Oxford, said that charities will be forced to fill the gap that cuts to government support will create in local authority funding.

There is currently no legal obligation for local authorities to offer or maintain homelessness provision.

The blackest of Fridays

0

Traditionally, the title of Black Friday has been bestowed upon particularly disastrous days in world history: JFK’s 1963 assassination, the 2009 Jakarta bombings, and the recent Brexit vote all happened on a Friday. However, in the past fifty years the phrase has taken on a less tragic meaning.

Whereas in the past Black Fridays were days of national grief and mourning, the day after Thanksgiving is black because retailers go ‘into the black’, begin to make a profit, for the first time in the year. Today, Black Friday is synonymous with frenzied shopping, bargain discounts and undignified Walmart brawls. But I would argue that Black Friday has not lost all of its tragic undertones. Sandwiched between the traditional celebrations of Thanksgiving and Christmas, it represents the very worst of our consumerist culture.

In the build-up to the festive season, parents are often quick to remind children that the upcoming holidays have moral undertones: thanksgiving isn’t all about the food, but family. Although we live in an increasingly materialistic world, nobody wants their family to forget about the day-to-day importance of familial love, selflessness and gratitude. So why is it that whenever Black Friday rolls around these hefty moral considerations are so often thrown out the window to make space for a new bargain flat-screen TV?

Keen not to be outdone by their American counterparts Walmart, Target, and Sears, UK retailers will this Friday eagerly welcome in the general public for a day of discounts, violence, and anarchy. This may seem melodramatic until you discover the website Black Friday Death Count, which tallies up the havoc wrought by Black Friday. The figures are shocking: seven deaths and 98 newsworthy injuries since 2008, including the fatal trampling of a Wal-Mart employee by a wild mob of frenzied shoppers.

Since 2014, a single day has not been enough for many major American retailers. Walmart, Target and Sears, all intent on squeezing every last penny and punch out of the general public, have taken to opening their doors twelve hours earlier than usual at 6pm on Thanksgiving Thursday. Rather than sitting down with their loved ones for a traditional meal and reflecting on their gratitude, many families will eschew the game of family football and instead head to their local mall to get a good position in the queue. Of course, the greatest tragedy of Black Friday is the rampant consumerism and waste it promotes. Nothing is sacred to our materialistic greed, nothing is valuable. In the wasteful creed of the Black Friday consumer, this year’s fashion is next year’s landfill and today’s iPhone has nothing on tomorrow’s Samsung.

Amid this bleak outlook there is some good news. While Black Friday in the US continues to grow rampantly, the UK has not taken up the tradition quite so readily. Our traditionally reserved attitude tends to prevent us from brawling and battling in the middle of Tesco’s over first choice of bargain toothpaste. There has also been more organised resistance to the idea. The popular campaign Buy Nothing Day challenges people to a 24-hour moratorium on consuming as a detox from our materialistic holiday habits.

This November 25, let’s not allow ourselves to be taken in by the tempting deals. We should see through Black Friday for the frivolous American gimmick that it is.

Oxford students protest Higher Education Bill

0

OUSU have funded lecturers and students to protest in central London against proposed Higher Education Bill.

Organised by the NUS, students 15,000 took part in a protest on Saturday in London against the Higher Education Bill proposed by the British government. Protestors held signs saying “You can’t spell HE Bill without hell” and “Value my mind not my bank account.”

The Bill, proposed in 2015, plans to increase tuition fees in correspondence to inflation from 2017 onwards. It will create new university league tables based on teaching quality which will allow some universities to raise tuition fees higher than others.

This could raise fees from £9,000 to £9,250 per year. Malia Bouattia, NUS President, called this new proposed Bill an “ideologically led market experiment.”

OUSU urged Oxford students to attend Saturday’s protest and organised coaches leaving from Wadham College to take students there.

OUSU commented, “We believe that Oxford students should have their voices heard on a national platform and we aim to facilitate the engagement of our students’ voices with issues of national policy wherever we can.”

Balliol, St John’s and Pembroke JCR have also expressed their opposition to the Bill to increase university fees. The Balliol motion called the university’s decision to participate in the Bill as “detrimental to access.” Pembroke JCR donated also £100 towards coaches to take students to Saturday’s protest.

After originally expressing an intention to increase fees for all students, the University of Oxford have decided not to raise tuition fees for students enrolled before 2016. This decision came after OUSU posted a video in September, calling the bill “outrageously unfair” and urged students to sign petitions and pass motions in JCRs.

However, the university have not opposed the increase in fees for students enrolling from the year commencing 2016. Financial models have estimated that some intuitions can charge up to £12,000 a year by 2026 should this Bill pass. OUSU expressed that the initial £250 increase is “a small step on a slippery slope.” The Bill passed by a majority in Commons on Monday.

Sean O’Neill, PPEist at Hertford, was a protestor, told Cherwell, “We need to defend education however we can, in the face of a government which won’t put our students and academics first.

“This is clearly an issue that negatively affects students and the future of our university; OUSU needs to be there to represent us.”

Disadvantaged applicants less likely to achieve Firsts

0

Students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be awarded first class degrees than their peers, Oxford University data has revealed.

The statistics show that 22.9 per cent of undergraduates from underrepresented backgrounds received a First, compared to 30.3 per cent of their course mates.

The figures, obtained by Cherwell via Freedom of Information requests, compare degree classes for flagged and non-flagged students at the university.

Flags are given to undergraduates who meet a number of criteria including living in a deprived postcode, coming from a school which sends few pupils to Oxbridge or having lived in care.

The investigation also found that flagged students are more likely to withdraw from their studies or take longer to complete their course.

Only 76.2 per cent of flagged students had completed their degree by the time statistics were obtained by Cherwell, compared to 82.3 per cent of non-flagged students.

The findings, taken from data about undergraduates admitted between 2010 and 2013, mirror the “gender gap” which exists in degree results at the University. However, these statistics are the first to identify an association between degree outcome and socioeconomic background.

Eden Bailey, VP for Access and Academic Affairs told Cherwell, “Oxford has a serious problem with attainment gaps. A working group is already well in progress to tackle the gender and race attainment gaps, and at OUSU we’re glad the central University is acknowledging the present situation, which is unacceptable.

“It’s really important that ‘access’ work doesn’t just stop at admissions, but the University is doing everything they can be to ensure that all students have access to educational opportunities, and filling their full academic potential, regardless of their background, identity, or circumstance.

“I am very conscious that OUSU doesn’t have a liberation campaign relating to class or socioeconomic disadvantage, and would love to hear from students who would be interested in this.”

In response to the findings, a university spokesperson commented, “Oxford and its colleges offer highly personalised academic and financial support to students, and students with contextual flags at Oxford still have drop-out rates that are among the lowest in the sector, and do extremely well in achieving top degrees. The university will continue to work to ensure all students are well supported in their studies academically, personally and financially.”

The spokesperson added that Oxford was not alone in facing this type of problem and that it may be too early to draw conclusions given the sample size. They highlighted that the distribution of Firsts may also be affected by degree programme choices and other factors.

Previous studies have suggested that the comparatively lower success rate of Oxford students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds is not reflected nationally. A report by the student think-tank OxPolicy into the effect of socioeconomic background on degree outcome found that “at no Higher Education Institution did under-represented students perform worse than their peers.”

A perspective from Princeton: the stereotypes and surprises

0

Ah, American college. I imagine that you’ve got one of a few images in your head right now. A bunch of incredibly diverse students smiling fondly into the distance amongst a few orange leaves? A landfill of red cups in some beer-soaked frat house named Gamma-Xi-Pi? Boat shoes?

When I first took to the Princeton campus this September, my mind was full of these stereotypes (I should probably have visited beforehand). In reality, I don’t think life at Princeton stretches that far from the universities it modelled itself on: Oxford and Cambridge. They all have a bunch of incredibly talented people, are overwhelmingly liberal, and, quite frankly, work pretty hard.

However, at the risk of sounding a like a knock-off version of a Buzzfeed writer, here’s a few things that my non-Oxford educated self would see as a little different:

Diversity 

“An Englishman, a Jew, an African-American and an Asian walk into their Freshman Dorm”

Whilst my first experience on US soil was well fit to the format of some racially insensitive joke, I’ve come to realise that the diversity of my roommates isn’t something special here. In my first semester I’ve made friends from California, South Carolina, New York and everywhere in-between. Princeton admits their students to maximise the diversity of an incoming class (over half of my year are students of colour), and this racially and geographically selective intake, whilst a bit frustrating when applying, contributes to an amazingly diverse and interesting community once you’re here.

The difference in diversity extends beyond demographics though. The emphasis on athletics and other special talents is also clear to see. Whilst students at Oxford are no less talented, the diversity of non-academic talent that I’ve met since enrolling has been even more impressive than I first expected. Whether a high-tier University like Princeton should really be admitting athletes who care less about studying is up for debate, however personally I’ve found that at the very least the emphasis on sport fosters a greater element of campus spirit, in a similar way to the Oxbridge boat race.

Ultimately the different admissions criteria result in different campus bodies, and it’s the social and talent diversity which led me to choose to attend Princeton.

Nightlife 

And now onto the cliché question of choice: “Jonny, can you still go out in America ‘cause of the whole drinking age thing?”

You may be unsurprised to know that the legal drinking age doesn’t really impede social drinking at Princeton. Along with the ten or so large ‘frats’ (basically just mansions with basements, music and cheap beer on tap), alcohol is readily available around campus if you want it.

Despite this important saviour of the nightlife, the difference between it and Oxford’s counterpart cannot be emphasised enough. For all the chat I just gave on diversity, Princeton is pretty unashamedly elitist when it comes to its night scene. In order to get into most of the clubs on ‘The Street’ (a large road with all the ‘frat’ equivalents), you need a pass from an older member, something that leads to a fair bit of social stratification. Each club has its own reputation, and this self-fulfilling prophecy often means members of a certain group or team are all in the same club. A little insular I think. You’ll often find yourself going out with a group of friends at the beginning of the night, only to go your separate ways until you maybe see each other at one of the few open clubs at the end of the night. Odd.

Race vs. Class 

As their respective stereotypes go, Oxford’s and Princeton’s are as similar as you might find. Elitist would be the go-to buzzword. Interestingly, since I started studying here, it’s race rather than class which has been the key source of tension. This isn’t to say that there’s a raging race problem, because, at Princeton at least, there really isn’t. It’s just that I’ve noticed American students implicitly reference race in way British students don’t.

Whereas my Northern friends here will “take the piss” by calling something ‘Tory’, Americans will be far more likely to reference race, such as by telling someone to get their “white ass” over. It all sounds a bit trivial, probably because this is a very trivial observation I’ve chosen for my third and final, however the way in which these two sources of social tension are dealt with differently across the pond is something I’ve had on my mind.

And there we go. I guess upon reflection, the scale of these differences between Oxford and Princeton show just how similar the two are. Both are excellent universities, and both have the negative connotations that go with being an excellent university. If you ever do get the opportunity to undergo an exchange programme, I cannot recommend Princeton, or any other US college highly enough.

Visiting from Baltimore: a tale of two systems

0

Imagine: It’s two o’clock in the morning and I’m somewhere up in Summertown (I don’t know how far) and this fox wanders out from between the houses and stops in the middle of the street and just stares at me. And I’m standing in the middle of the street (because the sidewalk is creepy and full of shadows) and I’m staring, too. And I decide,

“Okay. That’s a sign if I’ve ever seen one. Time to head back.” So I turn around and walk back to College.

Coming home from Oxford was difficult for me. During my last week of Trinity, I started trying to condense a year’s worth of experiences into a few, neutral sentences in preparation for the barrage of obnoxiously simplistic “how was your time abroad?” questions. This article is not the 500-word version of those answers. With five months of reflection to work with, I have something real to say.

My first term at Oxford was incredible. Michaelmas was filled with bopping until we couldn’t bop any more, nighttime jaunts in Port Meadow, and the occasional (read: daily?) pub crawls that would inevitably end at Turf Tavern. But my experience abroad wasn’t all punting and daisy chains. There were times that it was very lonely. No one wants to tell you how difficult it is trying to build a home around something so temporary. No one likes to talk about the weeks of no sun or the breakdowns in Tesco when you realize you can’t make your favorite Christmas dish because the ingredients aren’t sold in England.

For me, the loneliest part was not being able to talk about missing home. How do you speak negatively about this incredible opportunity when everyone around you is saying they never want to leave? I’d dreamt about being at Oxford since I was five years old; even my family couldn’t understand why I was sitting in my room and not running around in the rain soaking up every drop of my Oxford experience. Oxford’s disturbing lack of mental health awareness and resources are topics best covered by a different student at a different time. All I’ll say on the matter is that silence can be a lot harder than speaking out.

It wasn’t as though my entire experience at Oxford was filtered through the lens of this grey cloud of depression. I met some of the greatest people while I was abroad. I made incredible friends. I was fortunate enough to be at St. Anne’s, the absolute best college, in my wholly objective opinion. But when my friend asked me to write about my time in Oxford this is the story I wanted to tell. Because I feel as though it isn’t one that gets told often enough. It’s whispered on drunken walks home from Wahoo or mentioned quickly in a dorm room over a fourth glass of Shy Pig: Oxford is great and wonderful and special; it is also isolating, lonely, and far from home.

Thanksgiving at Standing Rock

0

Across a lonely bridge in rural North Dakota spirals a length of gleaming razor wire. On one side, dozens of police officers stand in riot gear, accompanied by armored personnel carriers, towering lights, and water cannons. On the other end is a disorganized swath of unarmed protesters who, since last summer, have gathered to peacefully oppose the development of an oil pipeline that would connect North Dakota to the rest of the nation’s energy infrastructure.

On Sunday night, mounting tension erupted into chaos. A small provocation by protestors—an attempt to move a burnt-out vehicle which blocked the bridge—unleashed a massive response by police. Videos and photographs show water cannons, tear gas, and rubber bullets fired into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators.

The images are striking. Set against a jet-black night, clouds of tear gas and cascading water jets rise high above protesters waist-deep in wheat. Helmeted police in black uniforms hold bats or cans of pepper spray while large rifles hang between their hips. A tribal elder in traditional dress chants as he stares down police through the sights of their own weapons. Were it not for the Dakota blackness in the background, this could easily be Tahrir Square in Cairo or Taksim Square in Istanbul. Were it not for the color photography, the firework flashes of tear gas launchers, and the Operation Iraqi Freedom vehicles, it could be Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. Were it not for the wheat and the American Indians, it could be Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.

On Thursday, November 24, the overwhelming majority of Americans will gather with their families to celebrate Thanksgiving. For the unfamiliar, American Thanksgiving is one of the most important holidays in the United States, alongside Christmas and Independence Day. Its origins trace back to murky accounts of early 17th Century colonists sharing a harvest feast with indigenous Americans. But the “Thanksgiving Story” is rarely given much attention—the focus of the evening is gratitude and family. It’s the kind of celebration for which people open their doors to those who might otherwise be alone.

This Thursday promises to be a surreal experience at Standing Rock. A holiday which embraces warmth and friendship will intrude upon a snowy landscape dotted with canvas teepees and military vehicles still sporting their Middle Eastern camouflage colors. The scene on the bridge may resemble the Christmas Truce of 1914, an eerie testament to the military nature of this miniature ground offensive. Or it may fall quiet as police stay home for the day. Whatever happens, the last four-hundred years of “Indian policy” will be on everyone’s minds. The best-case scenario I can imagine is this: for just a moment the razor wire is moved aside, police take off their helmets and lay down their weapons, and both sides come together, at least to share an evening meal. And who knows? Perhaps, when the law enforcement officers get out of bed the next morning, going to work in the same way they did on Wednesday suddenly won’t feel so appetizing.

Wednesday Weltanschauung: Marijuana Legalisation

1

Marijuana legalisation has become such a popular position in the youthful generation that it has almost become a cliché. To oppose the legalisation of cannabis is to be an antediluvian madman who does not understand anything about modern society. And I do not wish to be antediluvian, or mad. I support the legalisation of marijuana—but not for the reasons most people favour it.

When asked why the favour legalisation, most people, especially young people in wealthy countries like Britain, favour marijuana legalisation, will say something along the lines that’s its harmless. If they’re being honest, they’ll even admit that the sugar in sweets or the alcohol in beer is more harmful than marijuana is. Others, who perhaps are more wonkish than average, might mention the effect the war on drugs has had on prisons, putting nonviolent potheads behind bars and costing the government hundreds of millions every year. A few people might even bring up the fact that in the US, the drug was has been used to criminalise blackness, with African-Americans being disproportionately arrested for the possession and use of marijuana.

All of these are very good reasons. Marijuana is as safe as coffee or tea, mass incarceration costs the governments heaps, and African American communities have been destroyed due to the war on drugs. But those are all relatively minor reasons to support the end of the war on drugs, and specifically the war on marijuana, compared to what this vanity project of the west has done to the third world.

It is easy to forget that the third world exists. In our day to day life, it is simply a source of guilt and vague sense of danger. It is where our cheap clothes and hated refugees come from. And to be frank, if it weren’t for my background, I would be as oblivious to the goings on of the third world as any other bourgeois Oxonian student. To be frank, I am ignorant of much of the goings in much of the third world. But I am familiar with the goings on of my country, which has been particularly affected by the war on drugs: and that country is Colombia.

If you have heard of Columbia, it is likely to be over the failed peace referendum in October, that time the secret service got caught fighting with hookers in Cartagena, that place where Shakira and Sofia Vergara comes from, or where your favourite TV show Narcos takes place. Remember that last one for a moment, and ask yourself, how could a country get to the point where one of the main things it’s known as is as a violent drug capital.

The causes of violence in Colombia have their roots well before the drug war, with the civil wars of the 19th century between liberals and conservatives, and with the rise and suppression of the nascent worker’s movement in the early 20th century. But there is no doubt that the violence in Colombia was exacerbated by the war on drugs.

When the war on drugs began, Colombia was not a peaceful country. It was a country with a long history of civil wars and military interventions in public life, with massive inequality and an almost hereditary political elite. But there were signs of improvement. The Radical Liberal Movement of President Lopez Michaelson showed there was a possibility of a third way between FARC style communism and the old quasi-feudal state of affairs that had governed Colombia since the 16th century. But that was before Nixon and the war on drugs.

The war on drugs gave a shot in the arm to a conflict that was on its way out. Injecting money into the bloodstream of Colombian life, the American decision to go all out on the war on drugs lead to the greatest period of violence that Colombia had ever seen. Local landlords began to hire paramilitary armies to kick peasants of their land, in order to ensure more land for their drug production. Drug cartels sprung up in cooperation with local landlords, until they began to violently overthrow the old landlords, and to violently battle one another. The military began to us extralegal tactics in order to meet targets set for how many tons of drugs were to be destroyed per year, dropping Agent Orange on the Colombian countryside. Some corrupt members of the armed forces cooperated with the cartels, helping them become professional armies. Peasants, displaced and bombed, became desperate. Those who tried to change the situation democratically were killed off by paramilitaries in what the Colombian government today recognises as a political genocide, while more radical peasants swelled the ranks of the FARC, for whom the drugs trade provided both members and money.

The drugs trade also led to the death of civil society. Courts, which in Colombia used to be respected institutions, had their judges murdered by the hundreds, with even the Supreme Court being bombed by a corrupt army. Politicians began to simply buy votes, while the state bureaucracy grew from being a weak but somewhat respected institution to becoming a nest of corruption so great that you needed a bribe to pay your taxes. The leaders of cartels like Pablo Escobar got elected to the House of Representatives, while Senators and cabinet members had personal hit squads to murder voters who dared oppose them.

Things in Colombia have gotten better than they were in the 1980s and 1990s, but the effects of the war of drugs are still there, impoverishing the country and perpetuating violence and corruption. And Colombia isn’t the only country where the people have become stuck in the crossfire between violent drug lords and corrupt governments. The story’s particulars change, but the broad strokes remain unchanged. Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua—and many other nations have suffered greatly due to the war on drugs.

People die for the west’s vanity projects. By all means, support legalisation of marijuana based on personal inconvenience, or government waste. But remember that they should always be secondary reasons, compared to the untold damage that the herb’s criminalisation has done to my nation, and so many other third world nations like it.