Legalization and Taxation of Currently Illicit Drugs

So now I wonder if illicit drugs, class A, B and C drugs, were both legalized and taxed, what that would the tax take be? Currently, all of these are effectively tax free, not exactly something 'Da Government' (tm) would want to advertise I would think.

There is quite an interesting (it's that word again - ed), report by the Home Office, 'Seizure of Drugs in England and Wales in 2010/11' shows statistics for the number of seizures by the police and the Border Agency not only over 2010/11 but over the last 10 years, unfortunately doesn't give the value of the seizures, the so-called 'street value', so a little more research is required (pause for research - ed)

Another Home Office sponsored report, 'Illicit Drug Trade in the United Kingdom'  gives a value of  £4-6.6 bn based on 2003-4 figures. Which means if the price of illicit drugs went up with general price inflation, using HMT GDP deflator to calculate it, would today (2013 - ed) be worth between £4.6-6.9 bn.

Now assuming (quite a few things -ed) that they would be sold for the same price and this is a big if and that the taxation rate was the same as cigarettes, (assuming Da Government' (tm) would want to discourage it and so would tax it in the same manner) and assuming that consumers would not pay any more for it (i.e the cost of the finished product pre-tax would drop substantially, say to be on a par with tobacco). With a large finger in the air, and it waving wildly, it could  potentially be worth £3.7-5.55 bn  a year in forgone taxes. (This seems a little on the high side, as fingers in the air estimates go - ed)

Given that 'Da Government' (tm) raised approx £11bn last year on the taxation of tobacco products, it seems that legalizing and taxing drugs could bring a significant tax revenue and free up large numbers of police and border staff to do other things?

Given that 'Da Government' treat both tobacco and alcohol as health issues (and BTW raise large amounts of money from us), why are they not doing so with illicit drugs? (it's the politics - ed).

UK Tax System and the Beer Duty Escalator

For those of you who don't have a clue about the UK Tax System (including most of the occupants of these Sceptered Isles) see here, there is a report by the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies - ed)  that has some interesting graphs (when he writes the word 'interesting' - it is worth noting that this not necessarily the word others might use for the piece of information that he is about to purvey - ed)  and is a good read if you want to get a grasp about how 'Da Government' (tm) tax us.

One graph (of the many - ed) that stands out for me, is the one that refers to the 'Excise Duties' on page 53. This shows a graph of total indirect taxation (VAT and excise duty) as percentage of the retail price (beer, wine, spirits, cigarettes (Sin Taxes), also on petrol and diesel.

Now I was under the impression that the Chancellor with his beer duty escalator was ramping up beer taxation but it is not obvious from this first graph. However, looking at Figure 5 on page 54 makes it quite clear that it has been going up more than inflation i.e. in 'real terms' in recent years. So all you beer lovers, sign up for the Stop The Beer Duty Escalator e-petition on the No. 10 website.(You could argue that it is still lower than it was in 1988 - ed)

It is noteworthy (really - ed), that the tax on fuel is made up of a fuel duty (tax) to which is then applied VAT (tax)! So a tax is applied to a tax! Nice graph showing that this is so.

Our Tax Pounds

I like the way that citizens of the USA and their politicians talk about 'your tax dollars', whereas we here in the UK seem to think that the money that the 'Da Government' (tm) takes from all and sundry is their money or 'public spending', as it is more colloquially known,  is theirs to do as they see fit.

However, as annoying as this might seem, we have given 'Da Government' (tm) a mandate for this confiscation. We generously give them mandate by means of a 'General Election'. What do we get in return for this mandate (for state sponsored confiscation), an MP.

This MP, who may or may not be in a party that we support (or dislike the least - ed), and who may or may not represent our views on one or in fact many subjects, will represent us in the House of Commons. Now, given that there are some 650 of the blighters, at least until the next election when it will be reduced, what chance do we have that 'our' MP will be able to affect any kind of spending by 'Da Government', well if the MP is:

• not a member of the ruling party
• not on the front benches
• not on one of the standing committees
• spending all the time fiddling expenses

I would hazard a guess at, none whatsoever.

Wonderful isn't it [cf Winston Churchill quote - ".. democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - ed)  - I reckon someone should take MPs to the Trading Standards saying that we are being 'sold' something that it is fit for purpose.

The other point to note here is we get this vote only around once every 5 years. You would think that given today's technology that there might be a bit of a better way to have a real say in how our money is spent? Really do wonder why there is a none of the above option on the ballot paper (come up with a better system them - ed) and if that wins a majority of seats we should have a rethink on how our democracy works?


Let's start a petition to force politicians to use 'your tax pounds' rather than 'public spending' as it more accurately reflects where the money comes from.



On a more topical note, maybe we think we are ordering steak (beef - ed) and seem to always end up with horse meat!

Charlie the Dog

I promised one of my Sister-in-Laws, that is my brother Paul's wife, Heather, that I would paint a picture of her dog Charlie, for her Birthday this year (2013 - ed). You might remember that I did an oil painting of Paul's Birthday cat Loki oops I meant this picture and that went down well in the Didcot family household last November.

So after a bit of chivvying (hurrying up - ed), as I had not received any photos,  I was emailed a couple of photos of Charlie. Now Charlie is a King Charles Spaniel (possibly a Cavalier (but not a Roundhead - ed)), so I have been told. For those of you who do not get the Cavalier/Roundhead mention see English Civil War.

However, as far as I am concerned there are five types of dog, to whit:

• rat on a rope/string (i.e. very small, will appear from out of a hand bag for instance - just for effect, possibly seen with Beautiful People in Beautiful Settings. Would need a stepping stool to bite you in the ankle)
• small (has to jump to bite you in the calf)
• medium (can bite you in the vitals without moving its neck much if at all)
• large (has to bend down to bite your hand)
• Shetland pony (i.e. very large - can stand on back legs with feet on your shoulders and give you a close whiff of dog breath)

I am someone who is not particularly bothered by actual breeds of dog, but mainly by size and by how vocal they are, that is how much they bark, and naturally there are a number of types of bark, which include both frequency and depth of bark:

• yap (large numbers usually associated with a high frequency - really annoying, makes you want to say to the dog - go on is that the best bark you can do? Associated with smaller dogs who have a Bonapartean chip on their shoulders because they are so small. )
• ruff (one or two of these as a reminder that the dog exists and could bark if he/she really wanted to but really cannot be bothered.)
• whine (hurt, makes you want to help as the sounds tugs at your heart strings (twang)- be careful - they do bite if you go to help)
• growl (beware usually a deepish tone and a definite warning that something is amiss - you getting too close for instance)
• yip (happy dog, generally frequent and high pitched - dog might go round in circles at the same time causing red-shift, this is why Red Setters appear to be red (not at all true - ed )
• woof (inquisitive dog asking if it is time for walkies or another bowl of really meaty chunks)
• bark (large dogs, usually for warning, or because there is another dog in the vicinity, or the arrival of the postman is imminent, or the someone was walked passed the house in a threatening manner, or they sky is looking too blue today - in fact for no reason at all)
• howl (lonely dog, letting the world know how lonely he/she really is - owners have left dog by itself - again)

There is an aside here, if a dog barks in an empty house, does it make a noise? Answer - yes especially if the neighbours are about (cf tree falling in a forest - ed) and answer no if the owners are challenged about it. Strange world in which we live where the people who experience the barking are dismissed as the owners 'know' that their dog doesn't bark unless there is a good reason! 

Back to Charlie 

Now given I am a life long member of the Collins clan (Enrolled for Life Membership at birth it appears), it means that somehow I (once it is finished) have to get the picture to Heather when she is least expecting it so that it is a surprise. Not sure how I am going to do this, but it will involve  subterfuge (what a lovely word - ed).

For those who are interested (yawn - ed) some of the membership criteria to be in the Collins clan are: 

• the hiding of the hazelnut, 
• adult discussions, 
• just missing seeing Fred Nerk, 
• sneaking up and jumping out on people, 
• bizarre sense of humour i.e. telling blatant truths in a manner as such to make people not believe you, 
• telling blatant falsehoods in straight manner so as to fool people, 
• queuing up and making a conga behind someone pushing a shopping trolley whilst in the shop

Postscript

Not everything written above is wholly true or wholly false. remember I am Spartacus.

Gay Marriage

This has hit the news in the UK, as there was an initial vote in Parliament last night to give same-sex partners the right to get married. This was passed by 400 votes to 175 with the Conservatives split, with more voting against than for.

I, for one, think that this should have been resolved some time ago, so better late than never. But don't you think it is rather odd that it is the Coalition with the Conservatives that are pushing for this. It suggests that some (but not all - ed) Conservatives are not as conservative as one might think.  Not looking into the voting records I would presume that it is the liberal part of the Conservatives that voted for rather than against.

As an aside, there was a Matthew Parris article in The Times (online ring fenced by a money requirement - after all it is a Murdoch paper) a few days back which mentioned the historic vote in 1967 to decriminalise homosexual acts in private between people over the age of 21. What surprised me, was that in his article he mentioned that Mrs. Thatcher voted for the act, which upon a little bit of research, wikipedia is a wonderful tool, turns out to be true, and also here is the voting list from Hansard to prove it.

Now, given my perception of Mrs. T,  I would not have thought that at all. It is noteworthy, that she also voted for David Steel's act to Legalise Abortion. So I have to guess that she was more of a libertarian than I first thought.

Mrs T. was, however, a very divisive character in this country. Not surprising in many ways as she had her opinions and stuck to them (the Lady is Not for Turning), whether she turned out being right or wrong. It was the Poll Tax what took her down in the end - well that and a lot of nervy Tory MPs who were worried about the coming election. The poll tax caused enormous upset in the UK, particularly in Scotland where it was initially introduced. The Conservative vote in Scotland has never recovered from that faux-pas.

Strange where that took me, from Gay Marriage to Mrs Thatcher, odd way for the cookie to crumble. Maybe the next post will take me from Chairman Mao to Desmond Tutu, guess we shall have to wait and wonder.

The Pacific

This is more to do with the US TV series 'The Pacific' which I was almost given for Xmas last year (that is scary - ed). Well, to tell the truth, I was given 'Band of Brothers' from Alex, which was around 3 years late (explain late - ed).

Explanation of late 

I joined the Saunders family as an honorary member (not consul? - ed), when I married Bridget, just over three years ago (Happy Anniversary  for 16th January - ed). They do this present giving thingummyjig of 'Secret Santa' - and Alex was assigned to buy me 'Band of Brothers'. However, this was not forthcoming, the reason being escapes me, but a couple of Xmas's went past and I finally bought it for myself last year - as it was less that £20 and so what I deemed to be a bargain. Naturally after having bought it for myself Alex then bought it for me last Xmas, as is the way with things. So, when Bridget and I were out shopping in Reading the other week, we saw 'The Pacific' at another bargain price, and a quick phone call to Alex and some negotiations and Alex effectively bought that for me instead (confused yet - ed). Well it all made sense at the time.

Back on track

After that someone long aside, I am back to trying to talk about the series. Well, before I do, I need to mention the word 'miniseries' - now me being a little slow sometimes (only sometimes - ed), I read this word in the sense of 'ministries' not 'mini-series' or 'mini series', which made me sigh, yet another wonderful addition to the English Language.

However, despite that disruptive word, I managed to watch all 10 episodes within a few days. Very impressed and I rate it as excellent (bit bloody for some - ed). It showed the real horror of war and its corruptive and enduring influence on the participants. It was particularly emotional at the end to see the veteran US Marines talking about their experiences and seeing the effect it still has on them to this day.

Those US Marines fought over some of the worst terrain and in some of the worst weather in the world and intriguingly some of the most beautiful islands. Interesting to note that it was another Spielberg / Hanks production, those two seem to have got a good grasp of how to make modern 'war' films, they were both involved in 'Band of Brothers' and 'Saving Private Ryan' - which both have particularly emotive scenes of the 1944 D-Day Landings in Normandy.

I visited some of the Normandy beaches by bike back in the Summer of 1981, and it was a moving experience. If you are in that area, it is well worth a visit to get some perspective on life and death. The rows and rows of white crosses plunge deep into ones psyche and play a very sombre tune.

Reflections 

What I have taken from the above series and my reading of many books on military matters, is that who lives and who dies during warfare is apparently random. I am not a believer in any god, so I don't believe that it is him/her who sets your destiny and that your death in war is part of some grand pre-ordained scheme. It is simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One of the things that is mentioned time and time again by soldiers, is that they do not understand and struggle with trying to comprehend why it was their friend who died and why they survived. It maybe heartless, but I think it is just simply down to chance.

Blink

Funny that. Just blinked and a couple of weeks went past. What happened to January 2013? It always reminds me of Einstein's quote with respect to time and relativity, "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity."  Funny that it sounds more like subjective time rather than relative time.

So what happened to the rest of January. Well there was another couple of paintings and not a lot else. Saw another great picture on 500px which was an African Sunset... fabulous sky (and you know me - I like sunrises and sunsets, and all bits of sky in between). So it might turn out that this post contains some links to the steps in the creation of the oil painting. First I need to find the picture again to show what I was working on. Here it is, and thanks to Robert Weber for having taken it. Giraffes really are quite odd shaped creatures. Don't forget to try and watch the battling giraffes in Episode 1 of the BBC Series Africa (yes yes, he has already mentioned this a couple of posts ago, but you know it is the whole age thing, potentially a senior moment - ed)

So here are the steps in my painting of this; step 1, what I have just noticed is that I failed to take a photo of the quick sketch I did, to get the placement right. (another senior moment - ed?). The other thing to note is that I have inadvertently put in a slope from left to right which is not in the original (artistic licence anyone? - ed)

Then Step 2 takes me to here. Now looks like the sketch of the 'Mummy' giraffe has a diplodocus head, but the wonders of oil paint will in due course fix that!

Step 3 (we are not learning a dance for Strictly Come Dancing - ed), leads us to this place. Have to say that the photo isn't the best and the giraffe is looking more like a dinosaur (no comment - ed).

Then I appear to be almost there with step 4 this and then we finally get to the final here. Now it took me a while (seemed like hours relatively - ed) to work out that the yellow part at the bottom of the photo and hence the painting was in fact sand... initially thought it was water, but nope, was sand. You may also notice that I made the nearest, largest tree have more branches than the original, but also more than I intended, didn't get enough of the background sky in, and didn't want to try and put it in as I had lost (lost? - ed) the original sky colours.

Below are smaller images, which due to shrinking images miss out some of the painting but show the flow: