Crime and punishment

    This is part 2 of a 4 part series on the implications of marijuana on our society

Our present stance on cannabis has created a black market intent on fulfilling demand that is consuming our island and causing our crime rates to soar.  Further we seem intent on attacking the problems at the surface while ignoring the root causes.  Even worse we maintain a punishment scheme for users which outweighs the actual crime.  It risks taking otherwise good people and turning them towards crime and effectively punishes those who are self medicating or are victims of abuse that should actually be seeking help.  It makes little sense that crime is our great worry and yet we still hold a stance that makes things worse and not better.  Perhaps it is time we revisit this decision and figure out if there are ways to discourage use but not allow it to get so out of hand we create worse problems in the process.

Cannabis prohibition has created a black market rivaling that which which we saw in the US in the ‘20s with alcohol prohibition.  Gangs capitalized on a nascent demand for alcohol and found ways to supply it at great profit.  These profits gave rise to gangsters who, fueled by alcohol smuggling profits, branched out to other areas of crime.  It was not long before profits were so lucrative gangs felt it necessary to protect their interests.  Guns and gang wars proliferated until petty thieves felt the need to equip and protect themselves and the incidents of gun crimes rose to startling prominence.  Does this sound familiar?

Contrary to popular belief, those smoking cannabis aren’t the true problem for our society, it’s those who sell and distribute for profit.  Yet the more we ‘crack down’, the higher the profits go.  The higher the profits, the more stake criminal elements have in its distribution meaning people are more anxious to ‘protect’ themselves and their interests.  Thus we see more guns on the island which filters out to others not dealing drugs who now feel they need guns to protect themselves as well.  So now we’re seeing increasing incidents of gun related violence and Bermuda descending further and further into anarchy.  It is a vicious cycle that spirals ever further down unless we do something real to stop the problems closer to the root.

We need to recognize and deal with the problems at their core.  Inherently individuals are turning to cannabis regardless of laws against it.  They do so for recreational purposes, they do so to self medicate or they do so out of psychological addiction.  The recreationalists are going to do it as long as it the rewards outweigh the risks and really, recreationalists aren’t our problem.  Those turning to cannabis to self medicate or suffer from addiction are a problem as they should be seeking proper help but instead could be scared away or reluctant to do so.  Thus demand never changes, we don’t solve the root problems and profits for smugglers and distributors continue to rise, especially as we ‘crack down’ on supply.

Further we are intent on maintaining a punishment scheme for users which outweighs the actual crime.  It is so bad there is a rather sick joke around the island that you’re more likely to be punished worse for smoking a spliff than you are for killing someone.  This is the perception people hold on our streets, that people are more likely to get away with murder than they are with using cannabis.  One act has severe consequences for our society, the other does not.  Is this the message we truly want to be sending?  Where are our priorities?   

It is rather shocking that an individual caught with a small amount of cannabis can be given a criminal record and black listed from travelling to the US.  Sure the argument stands that an individual should understand and accept the consequences of their actions but the punishment is extreme.  The result?   You may well be an otherwise upstanding citizen who breaks no other laws and suddenly you’re marked.  You could face travel restrictions limiting your ability to get training abroad or have a job that requires travel.  You could face discrimination with regards to employment, making it hard for you to have a job.  You could become more likely to give up on society and turn towards crime.  All this for a crime that is about as damaging to others as jaywalking.  It does not make sense.

We are fueling crime with our policies and seem intent on ignoring the root causes while tackling the low hanging fruits.  Our present stance on cannabis has created a black market that is causing our crime rates to soar.  Further we’re only attacking the problems at the surface while maintaining a punishment scheme that outweighs the crime.  We need to focus on actually solving problems, not paying lip service to them.  It makes little sense that as crime is our great worry we still hold a stance that makes things worse and not better.  Perhaps it is time we revisit this decision and figure out if there are ways to discourage use but not allow it to get so out of hand we create worse problems in the process.

Just Say Know

This is part 1 of a 4 part series on the implications of marijuana on our society

As the marijuana debate has been rehashed there is little doubt that people will sensationalize various misunderstandings as they debate the issue.  It is important as with any issue that we fully educate ourselves such that we understand what we’re dealing with and don’t prejudge based upon hearsay.  For those interested I did take a rather useful course in university on drugs and behavior which opened my eyes to many of the misconceptions surrounding drugs and their use.  Drugs are actually much more widely spread than many realize including being contained in simply things like tea and coffee (caffeine) as well as chocolate.  Other substances are considered by many to have drug like effects (sugar) and yet some are acceptable while others are not.  It is important we aim to fully understand drugs and their impact so I thought I’d do a little research into drugs, marijuana especially.

It is interesting to note that marijuana, it’s active ingredient THC especially is not lethal.  The lethal dose of THC (the active ingredient in cannabis) amounts to about 40,000 times the recreational dose (ie, they pumped THC into the blood of rats to the point where it diluted their blood enough to kill them).  By comparison, the lethal dose of nicotine is the equivalent weight of a nickel.

Drug consumption was initially criminalized in the early 1900s in the US and Canada as part of a movement to restrict drug use amongst minorities (Blacks, Hispanics and Asians).  Prior to that time consumption of drugs such as cocaine were widely accepted (Coca-cola originally contained cocaine), was an activity undertaken by the elite members of society and was actually endorsed by individuals such as Queen Victoria, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Saint Pius X.   Indeed cocaine in the form of the coca leave was used by native South Americans for centuries without ill effects.  It wasn’t until the Spanish arrived, extracted the active ingredient in pure form and began consuming it recklessly that it became an issue.

Similarly marijuana has been used for longer than there are records.  It has been shown to have significant health effects, to be less detrimental than other legalized drugs (eg, cigarettes and alcohol) and yet still is demonized as the most evil thing going.  Quite unfortunately such demonization occurs at the detriment of society as we see individuals consuming it anyway, those who abuse it too afraid to seek proper help, a surging criminal element surrounding its production and supply and ongoing sensationalizing of inaccurate information.

Indeed one of the largest arguments against marijuana is that it ‘makes people crazy’ however there is not conclusive proof of such.  For those who have heard that marijuana increases the risks of Schizophrenia they may have misinterpreted the reports.  Yes, the initial analysis of Swedish military conscripts and subsequent reports can be downright scary.  However, subsequent reanalysis of it and similar studies have only conclusively shown that cannabis increases the risk of Schizophrenia and similar psychosis related disorders for those already at risk and has not be proven for those not already at risk.

For those who view sites like Schizophrenia.com to scare themselves to death with regards to the risks it is worth noting that marijuana is not listed as the only risk factor.  Indeed they report up to a 4x increased risk of Schizophrenia for emigrating to a new country.  Further having an unstable home life as a child and social adversity increased risks by 2.7X. So too living in a urban environment increases risks by 3X.  Further you can look beyond to other scientific studies such as this one which suggests alcohol is associated with an 8x risk of psychotic experiences in men, 3x in women.  By all intents and purposes by these suggestions Bermuda must be filled with crazies and yet we’re not.  Thus is it worth sensationalizing marijuana reports while ignoring other reports of similar risks?

Further we can look to places that have moved to decriminalize marijuana to understand the implications.  This Australian study concluded the incidence of schizophrenia has not risen with the explosion of cannabis use but instead appeared to trigger it in those already at risk.   Yet another Australian study confirmed this.  By comparison we can use cigarette smoking and lung cancer as a guide where as cigarette smoking skyrocketed so too did lung cancer.  A similar trend has not been seen with cannabis use.

As suggested, it is worthwhile fully investigating and examining an issue before making a judgment as far too many jump to unnecessary conclusions.  The criminalization of marijuana has nascent undesirable effects on our society that could be prevented or circumvented if we adequately reviewed the issues from a fair and independent view point.  Are there risks with smoking Marijuana? Certainly.  However, there are risks in just about everything we do in life and thus it is necessary to weigh the risks and choose wisely.  Ultimately telling people they can’t do it does not change consumption and if anything unnecessarily punishes individuals more so than the act itself.  As with anything it is rather easy to sensationalize the risks, however at some at some point you either are consumed by them or accept that risks are a part of living and just live your life. 

---

An excellent resource I found for much of the information contained here was this post which is rather comprehensive, in-depth and views things from both sides with evidence.

Another excellent resource on the history of drugs and policies in effect around the world is the report produced by the King County Bar Association, something I’ve covered before.

Comparing apples to apples

The following was submitted to the Sun for publication earlier this week but I haven’t heard if it will be published so I’m posting it here anyway.

The Bermuda Sun recently reported a number of rather startling statistics on income disparities between the races.  Quoting data from the Statistic Department’s 2009 Employment Brief they suggest that “White Bermudian 'clerks', for example, make $8,000 a year more than black Bermudian clerks.”  Undoubtedly this statistic is shocking and dismaying and only more startling than the statistic itself is the realization that it isn’t painting a fair picture.

To be clear there is no argument on the part of this writer that racism does not play a factor and that there is likely a disparity in pay between the races, however that does not justify misinterpretations of statistics that skew the perception of the problem in favor of one side or another.

Let us start our examination of the above statistic by taking a look at the earnings range of clerks.  According to table 20 on page 16 of the 2008 Employment Brief Tabulations data there were 5763 individuals considered under the ‘Clerks’ major occupation group.  Of these individuals, 78 were listed as earning an annual salary of under $6000 and 3 were listed as earning between $235,000 and $349,000 with the remainder falling in between.  Just to get the true scope of the distribution, let’s look at it in chart form.

Note the rather wide distribution in salaries.  The question you may be asking yourself is how one clerk can make so little while another can make so much.  The answer lies in the definition of ‘clerk’ which represents a major occupational group of unskilled clerks all the way to highly skilled clerks who perform advanced research in complex topics.   Indeed, the 2000 Census even classifies ‘Government Executive Officials’ and ‘Cashiers ‘ in the clerical role. Thus comparing one random clerk to another is not a simple apples to apples comparison. 

Now, another question to ask yourself, how likely is a cashier to have a doctorate degree?  If you agree that it is quite unlikely then you may also agree that education level plays a factor in what kind of job you end up with and the subsequent range of pay you can expect to receive.  Indeed we can look to the 2000 Census to confirm that the higher your education level, the more you can expect to earn on a median basis.

We can now see clear evidence that education level matters greatly in terms of earnings potential so now let us examine data available from the 2000 census on academic attainment by race.  To make the data easier to interpret let us simply compare percentage distributions from the data compiled for Bermudian population aged 16 years and over by highest academic qualification by race, which is available via table 2 on page 50 of the 2000 Census.

We can note via this chart that a much higher percentage of white Bermudians in the year 2000 had degrees than black Bermudians, who had the highest percentage of no qualifications.  While the classifications unfortunately do not exactly match the detailed breakdowns above, this was the best picture available by Bermudian status.  If considering non Bermudian status we can see the full breakdown via data from figure 4.3 on page 129 of the 2000 Census.

The sad reality that we face is that white Bermudians are more likely to hold a higher level of education and thus are more likely to earn more.  This subsequently explains why they would outpace black Bermudians in the ‘clerks’ occupational category along with many other wide reaching major occupational group.  While indeed racism is a factor that should be considered and examined we unfortunately do not have the statistical depth to get a true picture of the problem.  Indeed, to truly compare apples to apples we need to break down jobs by Bermudian status, race, academic qualification, field of qualification, pay, experience level and even institutions attended.  Even then we are forced to make approximations to make comparisons as no two people are exactly alike.  Regardless it is important that we take the time to fully understand the statistics we’re dealing with so we can fully appreciate the problem and hopefully determine its true cause.

Not so black and white

This years employment brief has been released and will likely be a focus as I’m able to find time over the coming days to review it.

The Royal Gazette has already jumped on the earnings gap between black and white workers by opening their coverage with “The average salary of white workers is 40 percent higher than blacks, according to a recent employment survey.”  This reflects poor reporting because the implications of the differences in racial demographics of Bermudians vs. Non-Bermudians are not made clear.  Thus Bermudians could potentially be falsely led to believe that the racial earnings gap is a lot larger than it is when the sheer percentage of white non-Bermudians who are brought to the island massively tip the scale.  The Royal Gazette can do better than this.

It is also a failure on the part of the employment brief (just as we highlighted with past Cure Reporting) to not identify racial earnings based upon Bermudians vs. Non-Bermudians.  The reason being that the majority of Bermudians are black while the majority of non-Bermudians are white and yet the level and type of jobs held by Bermudians vs. non-Bermudians, especially by race, are quite different.  This is also the reason why Bermudians median income lies at $51,976 while non-Bermudian median income lies at $65,316.  Let us also note that this is median and not average which means the person in the middle of the group not the average salary taking the total and dividing by all members.  In the case of average salary the numbers would likely be even more skewed.

To get a better idea lets look at some hard numbers by taking a look at data available from the Annual Review of the Workforce Survey Report 2006 (used for comparison, it’s the latest one I have on hand and no others are online yet) and take a look at Gross Annual Income by Race and Bermudian Status, 2006.

Note that the sheer number of Black Bermudians skew the chart and outpace anything else in the lower 3 categories of pay ranges from less than $23,999 to $60,000 - $95,000.

Let’s again look at this in % comparison

Note how white non-Bermudians dominate the upper pay ranges while Black Bermudians dominate the lower pay ranges.

To make things clearer let us first compare Bermudians and then compare non-Bermudians alone.

So here we have Gross Annual Income By Race for Bermudians only.  This is where we need to focus our attention on discrepancies of where the percentage distribution does not match general demographics.  We cannot expect Bermudians to measure up equally against the best and brightest of the rest of the world and thus the fairest comparison is to compare Bermudians to Bermudians.

Now let’s look at non-Bermudians

Note how much white non-Bermudians skew the upper portions of the pay scale.  How can we honestly simply compare black and white when not taking Bermudian/non-Bermudian into consideration?

For those wondering why the earnings gap exists between the races we covered that back in November 2007.  As we concluded the earnings gap between the races statistically (there is still the potential for racism to be a factor as to why people holding the same qualifications make different amounts of money, though those kind of stats are not available to my knowledge) comes down to profession which subsequently comes down to education. 

“What is the best way to empower black Bermuda?”

Silencedogood has written quite a brilliant comment in the discussion for my "token black guy" of the boardroom? piece.  Portions of which I found worth sharing for those who don't follow the comments.

the United States is not Bermuda.   ...  The differences in the economics of the US and Bermuda are some of the most significant. The Bermuda economy is skewed to knowledge worker jobs, i.e. those where the individual needs to be highly educated or trained. Think about it—accountants, lawyers, IT professionals—these are all jobs where you need to go away, study, work, acquire those skills before coming home. This shift has occurred at the same time public education has taken a nosedive in quality. This is why [so many people are] focused on education ... and why quotas won’t work. If you put someone unqualified in a job that requires skills you can only get by going away to study you are never going to see success and it will undermine those who have invested in themselves.

We also can’t ignore the population size and demographics. To expect a population of 60,000 to produce numerous high level executives for companies drawing human resources from around the globe is presumptuous at best regardless of colour. Therefore if we are going to compare colour we need to do so using only Bermudians not Black Bermudians vs. White Bermudians and White Expats. There probably is a disproportionate split there which needs to be addressed, but it will be smaller than a flat black/white split and more representative of the problem.

Which brings us to the original discussion of “What is the best way to empower black Bermuda?”

My personal opinion is that education is the foundation of everything. It gives you options. It gives you self-esteem. It’s something that, once you accomplish it, can never be taken away. To me that IS empowerment and that is what all Bermudians, but especially black Bermudians, need to realize and embrace.

To really address the issues this island faces we need to have higher standards in the public education system, we need to work our butts off as teachers and parents to make sure our kids meet and exceed those standards, we need to have a fully functional student loan program and we need to encourage our kids to go to the best schools they can get into. This will benefit everyone, but will disproportionately benefit black Bermudians who represent the largest demographic of public education customers.

Unless we start valuing education, and believe me we don’t right now, we will always lag behind. Setting up a quota system is the worst possible thing we can do. We are already seeing the outsourcing occurring from the restrictive immigration policies (which act as a quota-lite type system). The more restrictive and artificial the system, the worse it’s side effects will be. Fix the biggest problem first and then we can see what else needs to be done.

Very well said.

"token black guy" of the boardroom?

The Bermudian government has proposed legislation that would give the Commission for Unity and Racial Equality (CURE) enforcement power over the percentage of Black Bermudians in management positions.  Would such legislation inadvertently do more damage than good?  Would such a policy make it more difficult for hard working Black Bermudians to get ahead?  Could it possibly create a culture of entitlement and potential resentment towards Black Bermudians?  Could such legislation ultimately lead to the creation of a "token black guy" of the boardroom?

The above clip is from the movie "Not another teen movie", which basically was a comedic parody of teen oriented American movies created in the 90s.  This particular scene outlines the concept of the 'token black guy' which is the stigma of American teen movies that feature a sole black character whose only purpose is to make comments like "damn" and "that is whack", but otherwise stay out of the storyline.  It is this particular scene that comes to mind when reading of the proposed CURE legislation.  While the intentions of the legislation are honourable, could it cause more problems than it hopes to solve?

What would happen to the self-esteem of a hard working black Bermudian who begins to wonder if the promotion he received is largely due to the color of skin as opposed to his hard work?  Would he continue to work hard or begin to doubt the merits of his efforts by wondering if he had truly earned his place in the management realm?

What would happen to those black Bermudians who realize that they do not need to work hard to get ahead?  Would the potential for advancement based upon the color of their skin give them a sense of entitlement to protest at any advancement of non-black individuals on the basis of equality policies over merit?  Would it result in unqualified individuals being advanced into arenas in which they are not suited; essentially putting them there to serve merely as a placeholder or 'token' and not a valued member of the team?

Would advancement of black Bermudians above other harder working employees on the basis of race create a rift between black and non-black employees?  Could this promote undesirable resentment towards black Bermudians?   Could such a stigma cause the efforts of hard working black Bermudians to be ignored and potentially make it much harder for black Bermudians to be taken seriously?  Could this do more to damage the efforts and ambitions of those who hold the desire to get ahead purely on their own merit?

The government's intentions to propose legislation to offer a quick fix to our racial woes is an honourable one, but will it ultimately do more harm than good?  Will it make it harder for hard working Black Bermudians to get ahead?  Could it nurture a culture of entitlement and possible further racial division?  Is it likely that we will see the "token black guy" of the boardroom whose sole purpose is to stay silent and add little to the conversation?  Is this the kind of advancement we're truly looking for in order to achieve racial equality?