Happy New Years

Community

My New Years Resolution for our society is to no longer worship at the twin altars of individualism and technology but rather to embrace the saviour of community.

From the industrial revolution to the high tech revolution we have deluded ourselves that technology would solve all our problems. While technology may indeed have made the lives of the wealthy better, those at the bottom see much fewer of it's benefits and I have no doubt that it has contributed to the growing inequality in our society.

Individualism has been just as disappointing a solution to our problems benefiting only a select few individuals at the top with very little benefit “trickling down” to the bottom.

The fact is our problems are not technological but social and require sociological solutions. We are at our best when we work together as communities to improve the lives of everyone. If we want to build a better society we have to build better communities that serve everyone not just the privileged few.

We could even call this “communityism” but that's a bit awkward sounding so instead let's just go with social democracy.

Postscript

Philosophically thinking about the meaning of life and how our lives are just a tiny speck in the space-time continuum and how if you are someone who believes in community you will realize the only rational reason for living is to make other peoples lives better, while if you are an individualist you had better just hurry up and acquire as much stuff as you can before your time runs out.

The Pensioner and the Pandemic

This is the post I was going to write before I was rudely interrupted and told to lock myself in my room.

I may indeed be the least affected person on the planet by this pandemic, and the only one that it seems to be not such a big deal, simply because it simply has not had a huge impact on my daily life.

Health-wise, although technically in a higher risk group by age, I am in the lowest risk group by perhaps the most important metric, economic status. I am not living in a long term care facility or living with a pre-existing condition that puts me at greater risk and I am relatively healthy with a strong immune system. As long as I follow the recommended precautions regarding mask wearing, physical distancing and avoiding crowded indoor gatherings I feel completely safe.

As a retired pensioner I do not have to worry about either being out of work and out of income or conversely having to work in an environment that may expose me to the virus. This is a huge issue for many people, especially those in lower income occupations, many of whom are in the highly praised but underpaid “front line” occupations we hear so much about now and who will no doubt go back to being ignored when this is all over.

Most importantly my daily lifestyle has been impacted very little. The biggest inconvenience has been having to wear a mask when grocery shopping. My daily routine of outdoor exercise, primarily cycling with some hiking, has had little impact other than having to be somewhat more aware of keeping as much distance as possible when passing people.

Yes, we have not been able to eat out at restaurants but we only did that once every two or three months anyway, and that is a luxury many live their wholes lives without being able to afford.

We have not been able to travel outside the country for the past year, but then most people are not in a position to undertake foreign travel on an annual basis, and we have not done any recreational travel within the province for the last year, again something that many do not have the economic means to do regularly.

We saw investments in equities fall significantly (but they have now recovered) but our concerns about economic effects should be saved for those living from paycheck to pay check rather than for those that can afford to invest in the stock market.

I really have no reason to feel hard done by due to the pandemic.

Money Cannot Buy Happiness But ...

They say money cannot buy happiness but it certainly can buy food and shelter and education that can make the difference between misery and happiness, not to mention that health is directly related to economic status.

Yet people still claim people are poor because they are lazy and all we need to do to get rid of poverty is to create more wealth. Can anybody look at these numbers and seriously claim the problem is one of wealth creation rather than a critical need for wealth and income redistribution.

Keeping this in mind what reason, besides absolute immoral greed, could the excessively wealthy not want to redistribute the excessive wealth they cannot even comprehend, never mind spend, to those living in poverty and misery.

Lessons We Must Learn From COVID-19 to Build a Better Society

Community is the key to the future. Those societies that are fairing best in responding to COVID 19 are those with a strong sense of community. America's dismal response is not just because of Trump, but also due to the country's overemphasis on individualism over community.

Our public health care system, part of our collective sense of community, was key to our response. It made our ability to control the outbreak possible. But it is still flawed and could not respond was well as it should have because it is underfunded and incomplete. We saw that particularly in the for profit long term care sector, measured in body counts. We must complete the system by extending it to prescription drugs, vision and dental care and most importantly long term care of the elderly and home care. We must eliminate profit from the provision of health care so that patient care and profits are never competing for funds. Most importantly we must realize that health is the most important priority for everyone and under-funding health care in order to promise lower taxes is in nobody's best interest.

Our economic safety net was the next most important factor in our successful response. Unfortunately we did not have a proper system in place to respond and the government had to respond with a series of patchwork measures put together quickly which, while it managed to avoid the worst of our southern neighbours problems, it still left the most disadvantaged, well still disadvantaged. That series of measures, as necessary as they were, increased both the deficit and national debt because the government, that has been under-taxing the wealthy for decades, did not have the financial capability it should have.

What we needed and what we need is a basic guaranteed annual income, and not just one to keep people barely above the poverty line but one designed to provide a decent quality of life for everyone.

We say 'we are all in this together" but we clearly are not equally in this together and never will be as long as we live in a society of massive economic inequality.

We talk about groups such as seniors being more at risk but in reality the biggest risk factor with COVID 19 is economic status. Those placed at highest risk, our so-called front-line heroes, those responsible for producing and providing our food and goods, are working in cramped and unsafe conditions, along with those working in high risk long term care facilities, are the biggest group of COVID 19 victims. And these are the people most susceptible to the economic consequence of COVID 19, often living from paycheck to paycheck. A few extra dollars per hour for a few weeks is not the solution.

We must deal with the economic inequality in our society by raising incomes at the bottom and reducing them at the extreme top end. CEOs of corporations who make their profits and fortunes from minimum wage earners simply do not earn the millions of dollars per year they are paid. They are paid that because of an unequal economic and political system. We must reform our tax system so that those that can afford to pay more do and those at the bottom pay less at the same time as we reduce the gap between the bottom and the top.

We need to raise minimum wages to a level that provides a decent quality of live and use the tax system to redistribute the wealth of the excessively overpaid. We cannot build the type of community and society we need on a basis of extreme inequality.

We also cannot build the society we need without concern for the environment it lives within and without addressing the challenge of climate change.

We need to build a new society, based on community rather than individualism, if we want to meet the challenges of the future and this includes a move from more individual spending to more collective spending. Fundamental change is required if we are to survive the challenges of the future and thrive within it.

Also of Interest:

THE FIFTH COLUMN: Towards a Green Social Democratic Economy

THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

THE FIFTH COLUMN: On Democracy

The Pensioner and the Pandemic and ...

The Government Wants to Lock Me in My Room

Well this blog post is taking somewhat of a change of direction from that planned, which was to focus on the benefits of being a retired pensioner at this time, since the Ontario government is telling me that I will suddenly be at risk for COVOD-19 on my birthday in a few days and should (or must, depending on the source) self-isolate for 14 days after which I will be fine again (or maybe not, depending on the source).

This puts me in a strange position as someone who has been critical of those who do not listen to the experts and health authorities on the verge of engaging in civil disobedience by ignoring them. I am put in a position where they want me to change my healthy lifestyle and lock myself in a room for two weeks (or longer) presumably because of a statistical relationship between age and a presumed greater degree of risk COVID-19.

From the Ontario government website.

Self-isolating means staying at home and avoiding contact with other people to help prevent the spread of disease to others in your home and your community.

All persons over 70 years of age and individuals who are immunocompromised are advised to self-isolate for a period of 14 days. This means that you should only leave your home or see other people for essential reasons. Where possible, you should seek services over the phone or internet or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours with essential errands. (The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) | Ontario.ca)

From the results page for the COVID-19 self-assessment with all questions answered in the negative except for age over 70. (Coronavirus (COVID-19) self-assessment)

Self-assessment result

You must self-isolate at home and monitor your health because you are part of an at-risk group.

You are in an at-risk group because you said one of the following applies to you:

• are over 70 years of age

You must self-isolate, which means:

• only leave your home or see other people for critical reasons (like a medical emergency)
• seek services over the phone or online or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours
• do not go into a hospital or clinic to get a COVID-19 test unless you are asked to by a health care provider

The first thing one notices if one reads carefully is that the first references uses “advised” and “for a period of 14 days” and the second reference uses “must” and has no reference to a time period.

And the latest, as reported by CTV News refers to “strongly recommending”.

TORONTO -- Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health (Dr. David Williams ) is now recommending that all people over the age of 70 self-isolate given the elevated risk of "severe outcomes" should they contract COVID-19.

"Given the greater risk of severe outcomes to Ontarians who are elderly, I am also strongly recommending that individuals over 70 years of age self-isolate," Williams wrote. "This means only leaving home or seeing other people for essential reasons. Where possible, you should seek services over the phone or internet or ask for help from friends, family or neighbours with essential errands."

Meanwhile people over 70 comprise only 14% of COVID-19 cases in Canada as reported in this Ottawa Citizen article: "New data: Middle-aged Canadians most likely to catch COVID-19, so far". The percentage of Canadians over 65 was 14% in 2010 and growing (Statistics Canada) making it clear that the percentage of COVID-19 cases among those over 70 today is clearly below that of the general population. We are at less risk statistically not more risk.

But that really is not the point. There clearly is a subset of older Canadians with health concerns that require them to be more cautious and take more precautions, as there are within all age groups, in particular those that are immunocompromised and those that smoke or vape, due to the respiratory nature of the disease.

A blanket policy based on age discrimination does not seem to be the way to deal with health concerns that are specific to individuals and is not going to sit well with my comrades in this generation.

Fortunately there has been no indication that the province will use legal instruments to enforce this which is probably a good thing because we are a generation that grew up with civil disobedience.

COVID-19 and Poverty/Inequality

At the same time another important factor of this pandemic is one that has almost entirely been ignored by the establishment press, or mainstream media as it is sometimes called, and that is economic status.

When it comes to underlying health factors that make individuals more susceptible to the virus and less able to combat it economic status is a big determinant. It determines the quality of nutrition, as well as housing conditions (overcrowding, etc.) and other lifestyle factors, as well as the quality of health care one has access to. This is not just on an individual basis but also on a societal one with poorer countries in a much more difficult position to fight off the pandemic. Yet we see very little written about that in the media.

As we see with the rapid response to COVID-19, compared with the feeble response to climate change, governments are much better at reacting to acute crisis than to chronic problems. We see this as governments quickly jump in to deal with symptoms of climate change like flooding or hurricanes while their response to the real problem is feeble.

COVID-19 has brought with it not just a health crisis but an economic one, one that has affected the group governments claim to care most about, the middle class. Governments are scrambling to deal with the loss of jobs and income while also trying to deal with a major health crisis.

But what if they had taken inequality seriously. What if we had a guaranteed basic income (such as that proposed by Conservative Hugh Segal) in place. The government would not have had to scramble and stumble into implementing make shift programs. The solution for those displaced from employment and income would already have been in place

Postscript: The Great Outdoors is Closed

And apparently now the outdoors is closed in Ontario.

In a news release on Monday night, Ford announced a new emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The order closes all outdoor recreational amenities, such as sports fields and playgrounds, effective immediately.

He said the extension of the declared emergency and the new emergency order are based on the advice of Dr. David Williams, Ontario's chief medical officer of health.

According to the news release, the new order closes all communal or shared, public or private, outdoor recreational amenities in Ontario. These include playgrounds, sports fields, basketball and tennis courts, off-leash dog parks, beaches, skateboard and BMX parks, picnic areas, outdoor community gardens, park shelters, outdoor exercise equipment, condo parks and gardens, and other outdoor recreational amenities.

Green spaces in parks, trails, ravines and conservation areas that aren't closed are to remain open for people to walk through, but people must maintain a distance of at least two metres apart. Ontario's provincial parks and conservation reserves remain closed. (Ontario extends state of emergency by 2 weeks as number of COVID-19 cases now 1,706 | CBC News)

Healthy lifestyles are what will create a population most resilient to health challenges such as COVID-19. Being out in nature and exercising contribute greatly to this. At a time when we are encouraging, indeed requiring, physical distancing (previously referred to as social distancing) it seems counterproductive to close those areas that provide the space for people to practice physical distancing without locking themselves up in their homes in fear.

Final Words

None of this is to say that we should not take this seriously and listen to the health experts when they tell us to practice physical distancing to reduce the spread of the disease.

Background

Coronavirus - Wikipedia

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - Wikipedia

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Wikipedia

Rant For Canada

Are You Voting For Canada

The American Dream and Lazy Poor People

As a Canadian I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of many Americans, and not just the extreme right, that the poor do not deserve health care and particularly that their hard earned tax dollars should not pay for it.

The only reason I can come up for this is that they really do believe in the America Dream - literally and completely. That dream being that if you work hard you can become rich. If you follow that reasoning to it's logical conclusion then, if you are not rich you did not work hard, and if you are poor it is because you are lazy.

While that may seem absurd, a lot of things Americans believe are pretty absurd by Canadian standards, as seen by the results of this public opinion poll.

Who Is To Blame For The Olympics

So is it all just fun and games and are we all just blind to what is wrong with the Olympics.

I don't think so. I think many people have problems with what the Olympics have become with more emphasis on profit than sport and more emphasis on sponsors than athletes, not to mention the impact on the communities the Olympics are held in, which is more often positive for the wealthy and negative for the poor. On the other hand, many have been sucked into the spectacle that the Olympics have become, a spectacle that is dependent on, and supportive of, corporate money and sponsors. Sponsors money feeds the spectacle and the spectacle feeds corporate profits and somewhere in there is IOC empire building.

But we support the Olympics anyway because we still believe in the ideal, and more importantly because it is the only Olympics that the athletes have.

As for the Olympic sponsors, some seem to be really bizarre.

I do find it ironic that the company that has been exploiting Canadians longer than any other company is an official sponsor, especially since their Canadian Olympic clothing is "Made in China", but they do have the protection of the Fashion Police.

I also find it really strange to watch world class athletes promoting McJunk food and I have to wonder how many IOC or VANOC dinner meetings have been held at the Official Restaurant of the Olympics. And then there are the official Olympic drugs, not to mention official beer and wine suppliers. And what is a sporting event without an official gambling provider.

And I am offended by the fact that the Olympic organizers are forcing Canadians, and visitors, who want to use a credit card at the Olympics (and do not have the right card) to get a new one.

And then there is this.

There have been protests raising serious concerns about the Olympics, although protesting at an international sports/cultural event obviously does not receive the same amount of public acceptance as protesting at international political/economic events. The protests have included some damage to the property of corporate sponsors by masked "protesters". They state their case here.

While I can certainly agree that the minimal physical damage done by these masked "protesters" is nowhere near the damage done to the poor and disadvantaged by the holding of the games I cannot condone it, primarily because it does more harm than good to the cause.

I am one who believes people should stand up for what they believe in and not hide behind masks. I am even uncomfortable with the concept of anonymous blogging, but I can understand the reason for it and it does no harm to anyone. If these "protesters" want to make a point about damage done to the poor by doing damage to the property of those they consider to be causing it, then do it out in the open, surrender to the police, and then argue your case in the courts of law and public opinion.

But what I would suggest, as an alternative to protests that alienate the public, is that in the future the emphasis be put on the People’s Summit aspect of the protests and that the protesters propose to the Olympic organizers that they will not take to the streets in exchange for the Olympic organizers sanctioning and publicizing a People’s Summit that examines all aspects of the Olympics. The media should pledge to give the People’s Summit reasonable coverage, especially the host broadcaster. The People’s Summit should be completely independent, possibly university based, and include full criticism of the Olympics. It should provide for some participation by Olympic organizers, which would allow them to state their case and, more importantly, allow them to be held accountable by the public for their actions.

This will be to both sides advantage - the serious protesters will be better able to make their case and reach the public without a public backlash and they will not be tainted by the actions of so-called anarchists, who will be marginalized and easier for the organizers to deal with.

This is not to say that the problems are not serious enough to justify taking to the streets but that the alternative can be more effective in reaching, rather than alienating, the public.

Of course if Olympic organizers are not prepared to be subjected to public scrutiny and public criticism they can always reject the idea and suffer the consequences of continuing, and probably escalating protests at future Olympics.

In closing, I want to say, as a Canadian, that I am proud of all our Bronze Medal Winners and others in the world can make as many jokes about that as they want. I do not believe that you're a loser if you don't win a gold medal. Indeed, if you've worked hard enough to actually be good enough to participate in the Olympics you're already a Winner and I am proud of all of our Olympic athletes.

I Challenge Jack and Stéphane

If Canadian voters get their way one of you will be the leader of a minority government with the other holding the balance of power. I challenge you both to agree to these three principles before the current election is held.

Electoral Reform

If the voters do get their way and the House of Commons reflects how they voted, it will not be because of our electoral system but in spite of it. I challenge you to, immediately upon election, initiate the process to change the election system so that party representation in the House of Commons reflects the popular vote and to put such a system in place before the next election.

Climate Change

Both of you and your parties believe that tackling climate change is a necessity for both the environmental and economic sustainability of our country and the world, but you have different proposals to do that. I challenge you to find common ground and implement real measures to tackle this problem before the next election.

Poverty

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Averages mean nothing when looking at our economic progress. What really counts is what is happening to our most disadvantaged. I challenge you to make the elimination of poverty a focus of all government programs and actions.

What is ... The Contradictions of Airport Security

What is too dangerous to be allowed on an airplane but safe enough to give to poor people.

Click here for the answer.

Sick and Comfortable

Do you ever have one of those days you feel so sick and miserable you just call in sick, spend the day in your warm bed in your nice warm house and just wait till you feel better. Whenever I feel like that I feel so thankful that I can do that. Most people in the world do not live in modern industrialized countries with so very comfortable living conditions and the ability to take time off work when they are sick. Most people live in much harsher living conditions than we do and have to continue with the drudgery of life no matter how sick they feel, unless of course their illness makes them physically unable to continue to function, in which case they usually end up in even worse poverty than their normal poor living conditions. Sometimes I am just thankful that I can be "sick and comfortable".

Religion and Real Estate - King-Priests

I was channel surfing the other day when I came upon a televangelist on the CTS Network. This is not my usual thing to watch but it caught my attention because, although it was obviously a preacher talking, it sounded more like a real estate seminar. Apparently god created the world so that we could own it and where the Bible talks about eliminating poverty it means everyone should buy their own home and real estate.

At the end of the show I realized it was entitled “Washed By the Word' with Dr. Pat Francis. They provided the website address, which I just had to check out.

I found out this organization operates “Education & Kingdom Businesses”, including an elementary and secondary school in Ontario. They also sell “educational material” including an interesting video entitled “Anointed In the Marketplace”.

Anointed In the Marketplace will help to position you for your king-priest calling. As a king you are anointed with power, influence, wealth and wisdom to lead others. As a priest you are anointed to minister to others, pray, intercede and to advance His Kingdom. You are anointed. You are what you believe. His anointed will manifest in you place of work whether it is in the marketplace or at home. You are anointed for influence.

Once you understand your calling you will no longer work for a living but will fulfill your calling to represent God wherever He positions you with more power and influence. Send for Anointed In the Marketplace today and start your full-time ministry as a king-priest servant of God.

I am believing with you.

Maybe this is mainstream out there in the religious community but it struck me as something strange to come across on basic cable that almost everyone receives. That makes it a great marketing tool, and preaching appears to have become the marketing tool of the religion business in the modern age.

The Rule of Law and "Veiled Voting"

Canada is not a police state. The police cannot simply tell people to do something because they are the police. They must have legal authority. And neither can other government officials. It does not matter whether everyone thinks that requiring voters to show their faces is a good thing, whether it be the Prime Minister, all political parties, all Muslim organizations and leaders and veiled Muslim women themselves, or even a Parliamentary committee, if the law does not provide the authority election officials cannot require Muslim women to show their faces to vote.

Perhaps the law should be changed. But if the law is to be changed to require photo identification of voters then it must apply to all voters. So why was it not applied to all voters when the act was amended. Perhaps it was because many voters, particularly the poor and disadvantaged, do not have photo identification and requiring it would effectively disenfranchise many of the poor from voting. Do we want to do that simply because veiled women make some people uncomfortable.

And what of those who vote by mail, who do they show their face and photo identification to. Indeed, mail in ballots are a greater concern because there is no guarantee of a secret ballot, one of the basic principles of democratic elections, when mail in ballots are used.

Perhaps we should stop and think before implementing knee jerk reactions to what is in reality more of a theoretical, rather than real, problem.

Is The War on Drugs a War on the Poor

Canada’s ideological Harper government has decided that the best way to fight crime and the drug problem is to emulate the policies of the country with the biggest crime and drug problem rather than follow the lead of countries with lower crime rates and less of a drug problem.

Despite the romanticism of the sixties left with marijuana and psychedelic drugs the dependence on drugs for escape, recreation or creativity is never a good thing. We can debate whether marijuana is no worse than alcohol or whether tobacco is worse than marijuana or whether the new marijuana is worse than the old marijuana till the cows come home.

The bottom line is that natural highs are always better than artificial ones. Getting high on life is better than getting high on drugs (or money or status, etc.).

That all being said, the criminal justice approach to the drug problem, and in particular the zero tolerance approach of the United States that the Harper government wants to emulate, is clearly a failure.

It is very clear that how we treat drug users depends very much on social class.

Although caffeine is clearly a drug, we do not treat it as one because it is the drug most widely used by all classes. People who use coffee do feel dependant on it and do report withdrawal symptoms when unable to feed their habit. Coffee drinkers and other caffeine users use it as a drug, as a stimulant, whether to study or to work long hours. But it is not classed as a drug by society because of it’s wide use, particularly among decision makers.

Alcohol and tobacco are two more example of drugs used by masses, including the middle and upper classes that are treated differently than drugs primarily used by the poor.

Alcohol is the major social drug of our society, Alcohol is a social drink, but it is also used as a drug to alter ones state of consciousness, whether to reduce inhibitions in a social setting or to just get “drunk” That altered state of consciousness can lead to a reduced ability to reason and to impaired physical functions. The biggest impact of this has been the carnage on our roads due to impaired driving.

There have been attempts to ban alcohol consumption such as during the Prohibition period in the United States, which proved to be an unsuccessful as the current War on Drugs.

Smoking was the other dominant socially acceptable drug habit in our society. It is becoming less so as fewer people smoke, and particularly as fewer people in the decision-making higher and more educated classes smoke. The decrease in smoking came as a result of learning of the health risks. However we can clearly see that legislative restrictions against smoking only came about after there was a trend to stop smoking among the decision-making wealthier classes. Once smoking became a habit of the poor, rather than everyone, it became acceptable to legislate against it.

Criminal sanctions are reserved for the drugs of the poor, the so-called hard drugs. These are drugs that victimize their users. These are drugs that destroy users lives and eventually kill them. Yet our government’s approach to the drug problem is to further victimize and criminalize those addicted to drugs. While the aim of the approach is supposedly to target those making money from the drug trade the zero tolerance approach makes no distinction between victimized and victimizer. The American approach is a massive failure yet our government still wants to emulate it.
Have we not learned that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

It is not that we do not have lessons to learn from. The history of our approach to alcohol and smoking has shown us that criminalization does not work and that education does.

Our approach to impaired driving did involve increased criminal sanctions as a necessity because, unlike hard drugs where the main victims are the users themselves, impaired driving kills innocent third parties. However the transformation of impaired driving from a socially acceptable practice to an unacceptable one was mainly the result of education and the changing of social attitudes.

The massive reduction in the percentage of people smoking is clearly the result of massive public health education campaigns. We see that reflected in the fact that smoking rates decline as education levels increase.

So how do we apply these lesson to the drug problem of the poor.

First we need to examine our motives. It is clear that our motives for the War on Drugs are to address the problems drug use causes for the wealthier classes and not it’s impact on the socially marginalized poor. We are not concerned because these drugs are destroying lives and killing people. We are concerned because the addicted victims of these drug problems turn to crime to feed their habit. We see the crime as the problem because it’s victims are middle and upper class.

It is this motivation that causes society not to care that the War on Drugs only revictimizes the worst victims of the drug problem, the addicts. It seems that only the secondary victims, the middle class victims of the crimes count. Of course tackling the real problem and helping the real victims is much more difficult than fighting a war against them. More importantly these victims acre marginalized in society, have very little economic and social influence and have virtually no political power and very low voting rates.

Their very social marginalization and poverty is what makes them easily susceptible to the lure of drugs as an escape from their lives of desperation. Although the War on Drugs supposedly targets those that victimize them, the zero tolerance approach of its implementation fails to distinguish between the victims and the victimizers. More importantly the criminal justice approach of the War on Drugs fails to address the underlying social conditions that make them vulnerable to victimization.

We need a multi-pronged approach to the problem. I do not pretend to have all the answers but I do know what some of the things that need to be done are.

First we need to recognize that drug addiction is primarily a social and medical problem.

We need to find innovative ways to reach the youth in poor communities to educate them about the risks of drug use without preaching to them about how much better middle class society is than the world they live in.

We have to reach those that are addicted and provide them with the resources to overcome their addictions. Reaching them is the most difficult step. These are people that see the social establishment as the enemy, because it treats them as the enemy.

That is why harm reduction programs, such as needle exchange and safe injection sites, that reach out to these victims are so important. Not only do they save lives by reducing HIV and Hepatitis but they bring the addicted into contact with those that truly want to help them overcome their addictions.

More importantly we have to provide these desperate people with the help they need when they ask for it. All too often the window of opportunity when someone is ready to seek help is very short. Telling them they have to wait weeks or months to get into treatment is no better than refusing them treatment. We must be willing to provide the treatment resources necessary to allow people into treatment immediately. The long term costs of not doing that are much greater than the short term costs of doing it.

However, the most important thing we can do to reduce the number of addicted persons is to address their desperate social conditions. A true War on Poverty would be the most effective War on Crime and War on Drugs that ever could be.

We need to shift our emphasis from going to war against the victims of drug addiction to providing help to them.

Can Sociology Save the World

This column is dedicated to my daughters who are studying Sociology at Ryerson University and Glendon College at York University.

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s technology was going to save the world. It was going to create a new society of greater productivity, affluence and increased leisure time.

The increased productivity came, but at a cost. The affluence came, but for an increasingly smaller number as the prosperity gap increased giving truth to the proverbial phrase “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”.

Those who benefited decided not to channel that increased productivity into more leisure time, or time for family, but instead channelled it into more things. According to capitalist economic theory that is supposed to trickle down to the working classes in the form of jobs creating those things. But even as we were buying more things we were reducing jobs by buying those things, including the basic necessities of life like clothing and food, from overseas where they were produced at below poverty wages. Better to get a good deal than provide jobs for our neighbours.

We are increasing that gap. At first it was low tech trinkets and tourist items that came from cheap labour markets, then it became clothing and household goods. The theory was that it was a waste for our educated highly developed society to produce such goods. I remember when Japanese automobiles first entered the North American markets and the jokes about them. We were shocked when the standard for quality in automobiles shifted from German and Italian workmanship to Japanese technology. And then of course there was the transistor radio and all the consumer electronics that followed.

Not so suddenly we had become a society that imported much of its basic necessities and toys (leisure goods) from overseas while our unemployment, poverty and crime increased. But all was well, as the rich decision makers were still getting richer while being isolated from the impacts.

Indeed we, as a society, led by the elites, began to convince ourselves that we could prosper on ideas alone. We did not have to produce any actual goods. Research and Development was the new Industrial Revolution. All we had to do was design things and have them produced elsewhere at cheap wages and we would prosper, or at least the establishment elites would prosper. So we thought.

But countries like China and India are learning that North America, and to some extent Europe, will not only buy cheaply produced goods but we will also buy cheaply produced ideas, as intellectual technology jobs are now being exported to low wage countries.

The irony, of course, is that to the corporate establishment that does not matter. They will see their profits and wealth increase as the very society they live in is disintegrating around them. And they could not have done it alone. The rest of society, or at least the “huddled masses”, had to buy into it. Considering the massive media and advertising empires the corporate establishment has under its control that is not surprising.

So is technology evil. The truth is technology has nothing to do with the current situation. We are in this state because of social decisions made by both the elites and the masses.

These are social decisions with enormous consequences. We have looked at the impact on the poverty gap but along with that are tremendous social impacts - the biggest being the loss of a sense of community. Why else would we throw our neighbours out of work and into poverty so we could buy cheaper shoes.

The other side of the leisure vs things equation is the environmental impact of the consumerism of those who benefit from the increased productivity. Producing all those things require resources and energy with tremendous environmental impact. Producing all of those things in “developing countries” with lower environmental standards increases that environmental impact and to an extent makes our so-called higher standards meaningless. And of course transporting them from the “third world” to the “first world” adds to the resources and energy used and the environmental impacts.

Increased leisure on the other hand, while having some environmental impact, as more people enjoy the environment, can provide experiences that enhance our understanding and respect for the environment.

Our society is finally beginning to recognize the fragile state of our environment just as we are at a pivotal point between being able to save the earth, and it being too late to stop the inevitable.

So what is the point. The point is that technology is not the issue. It never is. There is always technology. The issue is the decisions we make as a society about living together on the planet. The benefits and problems resulting from our decisions always come down to social ones. It is about how we live together.

The technicians will never be able to provide the answers. It is up to the sociologists to save the world.