After the death of two teenagers, Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, head teachers are calling for the ban of the drug mephedrone.
Head teachers, as well as the police, are unable to exercise any serious power over the possession of mephedrone because it is a legal drug and schools who had caught children as young as nine with the drug had to return confiscated drugs at the end of the school day.
But I say make this legal high a class A drug and a new drug will come to light that teens just won’t be able to resist trying.
Why do teens love testing out drugs? There seems to exist a stage before proper adulthood, a stage of trying everything, experimenting, and wanting to feel good/ cool. Is it that teens don’t think about the consequences or do they simply enjoy taking risks?
If all drugs were legal would there be such a desire to take them? People are able to get drugs by one means or another so why not just legalise them and educate people about them properly. That way we can also guarantee that the drugs that are being sold are pure – not 90% dog worming tablets.
As a legal drug, mephedrone is cheap and easy to buy on the internet, eliminating any dodgy dealings on street corners. In fact, a Google search revealed more than 52,000 hits for the drug in the UK. Of course, it is banned for human consumption and is therefore advertised as plant food.
Would banning mephedrone really make a difference? Let’s face it, it isn’t going to stop people taking it. The only thing it might do is push the price out of the reach of nine year olds.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Sunday, 7 March 2010
For better exam results ... stay in bed
The results of a recent experiment showed that students who were allowed to stay in bed for an extra hour in the morning did better in their exams.
In the experiment trialled at Monkseaton school, a Tyneside comprehensive, three scientists have shown that the sleeping pattern of adolescents means that they work better later in the morning.
Hardly surprising really though. Ask any student if they would rather start lessons at 10am than 9am and I guarantee they will say yes.
You’ve all seen the cereal advert where a sleepy teenager can’t even manage to pour the milk into his bowl because he has had to get up so ridiculously early for school. (Of course, when he eats the amazingly fantastic cereal in the advert he will be wide awake.)
It’s not really the teens that we should be concerned with though, I don’t think. What about university students? Ever seen one of those get up early? The number of uni students who made a 9am lecture during their undergraduate degree must be very small.
Not least because students go to bed later. Whether that be due to the house party of the year or pulling an all-nighter before an essay deadline.
You don’t need to be a scientist to work out that if students go to bed late then they aren’t going to (want to) get up early. Plus, of course, they won’t be able to function fully until later the next day.
The research suggests that adolescent students are not able to work properly until two to four hours later than adults. Or perhaps us adults just have the sense and experience to know that if you’re going to be alert in the morning you can’t stay up ridiculously late.
What I want to know is, if schools adopt this idea of starting at 10am, how are the next generation ever going to be persuaded to start work at 9 when they get a job?
All said, I was hoping I might have a case for suggesting that my upcoming law exam be pushed back into the afternoon but unfortuanately the study says that the adolescent “time shift” persists only until the age of 21, after which we are able to get up as early as we did when we were young children. I don’t agree, I’d take the opportunity for a lie-in any day.
In the experiment trialled at Monkseaton school, a Tyneside comprehensive, three scientists have shown that the sleeping pattern of adolescents means that they work better later in the morning.
Hardly surprising really though. Ask any student if they would rather start lessons at 10am than 9am and I guarantee they will say yes.
You’ve all seen the cereal advert where a sleepy teenager can’t even manage to pour the milk into his bowl because he has had to get up so ridiculously early for school. (Of course, when he eats the amazingly fantastic cereal in the advert he will be wide awake.)
It’s not really the teens that we should be concerned with though, I don’t think. What about university students? Ever seen one of those get up early? The number of uni students who made a 9am lecture during their undergraduate degree must be very small.
Not least because students go to bed later. Whether that be due to the house party of the year or pulling an all-nighter before an essay deadline.
You don’t need to be a scientist to work out that if students go to bed late then they aren’t going to (want to) get up early. Plus, of course, they won’t be able to function fully until later the next day.
The research suggests that adolescent students are not able to work properly until two to four hours later than adults. Or perhaps us adults just have the sense and experience to know that if you’re going to be alert in the morning you can’t stay up ridiculously late.
What I want to know is, if schools adopt this idea of starting at 10am, how are the next generation ever going to be persuaded to start work at 9 when they get a job?
All said, I was hoping I might have a case for suggesting that my upcoming law exam be pushed back into the afternoon but unfortuanately the study says that the adolescent “time shift” persists only until the age of 21, after which we are able to get up as early as we did when we were young children. I don’t agree, I’d take the opportunity for a lie-in any day.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Venables is back inside
At 10 years of age, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were the youngest murderers in modern British criminal history when they abducted and murdered two year old James Bulger in 1993.
Now, Venables has been put back behind bars at the age of 27, after breaching the terms of his release from prison in 2001.
How must the two young men have felt when they were released on life licence back into the real world at 18? Even with new names, addresses, national insurance numbers and a worldwide ban preventing the publication of any information that may identify them, they must still have feared being recognised.
In fact, Venables was reportedly paranoid that someone would try to attack him before his release whilst he resided in a secure children’s home.
However alongside rumours that Venables was petrified of being uncovered are now rumours that on his release in 2001 he went around telling people who he really was.
Of course, even if this isn’t true, the chances of Venables’ true identity being revealed is much higher now that he has returned to prison. After all, how hard can it be for the other prisoners to identify a 27 year old man who is in for breaking his parole conditions?
Laurence Lee, Venables’ former solicitor has said that he is surprised that Venables has been recalled to prison as he thought that, of the two boys, Venables was the less likely to re-offend.
After his conviction, Venables reportedly went on to gain six GCSEs and was apparently allowed to join the army. What baffles me is the reports that he was employed as a bouncer. Surely bouncers have to go through some sort of training – perhaps not the sort of training we would want someone convicted of murder to receive!
Venables and Thompson were given their new identities aged 18. I was ok with this. Someone of course should have been keeping on eye on them (i.e. not allowed them to be employed as a bouncer!!) but the anonymity was granted to protect them as they were only children at the time. I was willing to give them a chance, to lead an adult life separated from their childhood. However, according to a YouGov poll last week, 67% of the population think that Venables and Thompson should never have been released.
What I’m not so sure if I’m ok with is whether or not Venables should be able to keep his new identity now that he has broken the terms of his licence. He was given a chance to lead a normal life but went against the conditions. I don’t think that he deserves anonymity any longer and I think that we have a right to know exactly what he has done to break the terms of his parole for our own safety if nothing else.
Now, Venables has been put back behind bars at the age of 27, after breaching the terms of his release from prison in 2001.
How must the two young men have felt when they were released on life licence back into the real world at 18? Even with new names, addresses, national insurance numbers and a worldwide ban preventing the publication of any information that may identify them, they must still have feared being recognised.
In fact, Venables was reportedly paranoid that someone would try to attack him before his release whilst he resided in a secure children’s home.
However alongside rumours that Venables was petrified of being uncovered are now rumours that on his release in 2001 he went around telling people who he really was.
Of course, even if this isn’t true, the chances of Venables’ true identity being revealed is much higher now that he has returned to prison. After all, how hard can it be for the other prisoners to identify a 27 year old man who is in for breaking his parole conditions?
Laurence Lee, Venables’ former solicitor has said that he is surprised that Venables has been recalled to prison as he thought that, of the two boys, Venables was the less likely to re-offend.
After his conviction, Venables reportedly went on to gain six GCSEs and was apparently allowed to join the army. What baffles me is the reports that he was employed as a bouncer. Surely bouncers have to go through some sort of training – perhaps not the sort of training we would want someone convicted of murder to receive!
Venables and Thompson were given their new identities aged 18. I was ok with this. Someone of course should have been keeping on eye on them (i.e. not allowed them to be employed as a bouncer!!) but the anonymity was granted to protect them as they were only children at the time. I was willing to give them a chance, to lead an adult life separated from their childhood. However, according to a YouGov poll last week, 67% of the population think that Venables and Thompson should never have been released.
What I’m not so sure if I’m ok with is whether or not Venables should be able to keep his new identity now that he has broken the terms of his licence. He was given a chance to lead a normal life but went against the conditions. I don’t think that he deserves anonymity any longer and I think that we have a right to know exactly what he has done to break the terms of his parole for our own safety if nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)