Drugs - Time to legalise - The Economist

[Guest alex]

Leah Betts died of drinking too much water - not due to the actual drugs. A drugs advisor got into trounble a couple of weeks ago for having the temerity to state that more people die pursuing horse riding (which could be said to be adrenalin based) than did through ecstacy but was then bullied into withdrawing the remarks.

I know she did. She essentially died of ignorance/lack of knowledge. She thought you had to drink loads of water when you were on ecstasy even though she was in the home and not out dancing in a club. Her kidneys couldn't cope. What a waste of a life. But the overwhelming message of the UK anti-drugs campaign in the aftermath of that was telling people one pill could kill you. The people doing it were clued-up enough on the risk of that to ignore that message altogether.

I read about the rest of what you said too. The debate never seems to be able to be based on cold hard facts. It has to be emotional for some reason.

Edited March 10, 2009 by alex

[Kitman 2188]

Amphetamines and cocaine, 2 of the most widely used recreational drugs do have that effect unfortunately. And im sure everyone is aware that it only takes one MDMA to kill you.

Im not so much against Cannabis, and would rather have cannabis legal then alcohol if truth be told

I think that message actually did more harm than good. It came about mainly after the Leah Betts tragedy and once people twigged how low the risk was of that actually happening the use of ecstasy went up if anything. I think speed and coke are more likely to kill you, along with drink - i.e. in a one-off 'overdose'. I seem to remember reading something to that effect at the time. A much more important issue should have been the long-term effects of prolonged use of MDMA. Unfortunately the tabloids weren't so keen on that story.

 

Interesting point. When you're young you think you're bullet proof. I knew people in the nineties who would take a handful of E's every weekend due to the tolerance they'd built up. God knows what effect that's had on them by now. Not like spliff, which only affects your short term, errr, your erm, errr.....

 

no, it's gone.

[NJS 3986]

Leah Betts died of drinking too much water - not due to the actual drugs. A drugs advisor got into trounble a couple of weeks ago for having the temerity to state that more people die pursuing horse riding (which could be said to be adrenalin based) than did through ecstacy but was then bullied into withdrawing the remarks.

I know she did. She essentially died of ignorance/lack of knowledge. She thought you had to drink loads of water when you were on ecstasy even though she was in the home and not out dancing in a club. Her kidneys couldn't cope. What a waste of a life. But the overwhelming message of the UK anti-drugs campaign in the aftermath of that was telling people one pill could kill you. The people doing it were clued-up enough on the risk of that to ignore that message altogether.

I read about the rest of what you said too. The debate never seems to be able to be based on cold hard facts. It has to be emotional for some reason.

 

 

My view is that the increase of drugs use reflects a recognition of the hypocrisy of the establishment and a lessening of the authority it has. I think in the past "drugs are bad m'kay" was taken as correct by the majority of society as they were conditioned that government knew best.

 

Nowadays however, people can see that drugs aren't as bad as made out and recognise the argument of comparing them with alcohol and tobacco - the argument from authority has been lost.

 

I see parallels with how religions teach about sexual morality - people are recognising that taking responsibility for your actions which harm nobody else cannot be "wrong" or "sinful".

 

This only leaves fear of prosecution as a deterrent which is wrong - laws should be "obviously" about harming other people - ie they should stand up to a moral test.

[Guest alex]

Leah Betts died of drinking too much water - not due to the actual drugs. A drugs advisor got into trounble a couple of weeks ago for having the temerity to state that more people die pursuing horse riding (which could be said to be adrenalin based) than did through ecstacy but was then bullied into withdrawing the remarks.

I know she did. She essentially died of ignorance/lack of knowledge. She thought you had to drink loads of water when you were on ecstasy even though she was in the home and not out dancing in a club. Her kidneys couldn't cope. What a waste of a life. But the overwhelming message of the UK anti-drugs campaign in the aftermath of that was telling people one pill could kill you. The people doing it were clued-up enough on the risk of that to ignore that message altogether.

I read about the rest of what you said too. The debate never seems to be able to be based on cold hard facts. It has to be emotional for some reason.

 

 

My view is that the increase of drugs use reflects a recognition of the hypocrisy of the establishment and a lessening of the authority it has. I think in the past "drugs are bad m'kay" was taken as correct by the majority of society as they were conditioned that government knew best.

 

Nowadays however, people can see that drugs aren't as bad as made out and recognise the argument of comparing them with alcohol and tobacco - the argument from authority has been lost.

 

I see parallels with how religions teach about sexual morality - people are recognising that taking responsibility for your actions which harm nobody else cannot be "wrong" or "sinful".

 

This only leaves fear of prosecution as a deterrent which is wrong - laws should be "obviously" about harming other people - ie they should stand up to a moral test.

A lot of truth in that I think.

[Fop 1]

Leah Betts died of drinking too much water - not due to the actual drugs. A drugs advisor got into trounble a couple of weeks ago for having the temerity to state that more people die pursuing horse riding (which could be said to be adrenalin based) than did through ecstacy but was then bullied into withdrawing the remarks.

 

It's true, it's pretty safe (most people that die from it die because of other related reasons). The downside is it can and does kill some (very, very few, but still) people without warning.

 

If it's your kid that's one of those very few then "oh well it's pretty safe" probably isn't going to be much of an argument, even though peanuts are a much greater threat to human life.

[Fop 1]

Amphetamines and cocaine, 2 of the most widely used recreational drugs do have that effect unfortunately. And im sure everyone is aware that it only takes one MDMA to kill you.

Im not so much against Cannabis, and would rather have cannabis legal then alcohol if truth be told

I think that message actually did more harm than good. It came about mainly after the Leah Betts tragedy and once people twigged how low the risk was of that actually happening the use of ecstasy went up if anything. I think speed and coke are more likely to kill you, along with drink - i.e. in a one-off 'overdose'. I seem to remember reading something to that effect at the time. A much more important issue should have been the long-term effects of prolonged use of MDMA. Unfortunately the tabloids weren't so keen on that story.

 

Interesting point. When you're young you think you're bullet proof. I knew people in the nineties who would take a handful of E's every weekend due to the tolerance they'd built up. God knows what effect that's had on them by now. Not like spliff, which only affects your short term, errr, your erm, errr.....

 

no, it's gone.

 

 

That's another issue, there's loads of stuff that's fairly safe in the short term, that does or may have some pretty iffy medium to long term effects.

 

Doesn't mean they should stay illegal necessarily, but equally who knows what new strains they'll put the NHS under in 30 years time.

[trophyshy 6434]

Doesn't mean they should stay illegal necessarily, but equally who knows what new strains they'll put the NHS under in 30 years time.

 

Another possible reason to control and tax it?

[ChezGiven 0]

Some interesting points been raised in this thread, however, a couple of observations.

 

Jonny saying he 'dabbles' Righto.

 

Also, the attitude of the non-drinkers seems to be "i dont want to blow 60 quid on a night out' or 'I dont want to get mashed up". Very bizarre for me, i know a lot of people who drink one or two 'glasses' when they go out and no more. The idea of eating great food without a decent bottle of wine is fucking sacrilege to me too. Why do the non-drinkers equate drinking to getting drunk? When i smoke blow, i dont smoke it until i cant speak or move (except round at alex's on the odd occasion), so why when discussing alcohol does it have to be avoided otherwise you end up bladdered? What happened to moderation?

[Tooj 17]

Some interesting points been raised in this thread, however, a couple of observations.

 

Jonny saying he 'dabbles' Righto.

 

Also, the attitude of the non-drinkers seems to be "i dont want to blow 60 quid on a night out' or 'I dont want to get mashed up". Very bizarre for me, i know a lot of people who drink one or two 'glasses' when they go out and no more. The idea of eating great food without a decent bottle of wine is fucking sacrilege to me too. Why do the non-drinkers equate drinking to getting drunk? When i smoke blow, i dont smoke it until i cant speak or move (except round at alex's on the odd occasion), so why when discussing alcohol does it have to be avoided otherwise you end up bladdered? What happened to moderation?

7 pages and that's one of the things you comment on.

[snakehips 0]

Some interesting points been raised in this thread, however, a couple of observations.

 

Jonny saying he 'dabbles' Righto.

 

Also, the attitude of the non-drinkers seems to be "i dont want to blow 60 quid on a night out' or 'I dont want to get mashed up". Very bizarre for me, i know a lot of people who drink one or two 'glasses' when they go out and no more. The idea of eating great food without a decent bottle of wine is fucking sacrilege to me too. Why do the non-drinkers equate drinking to getting drunk? When i smoke blow, i dont smoke it until i cant speak or move (except round at alex's on the odd occasion), so why when discussing alcohol does it have to be avoided otherwise you end up bladdered? What happened to moderation?

7 pages and that's one of the things you comment on.

 

You, you, dabbler, you

[ChezGiven 0]

Some interesting points been raised in this thread, however, a couple of observations.

 

Jonny saying he 'dabbles' Righto.

 

Also, the attitude of the non-drinkers seems to be "i dont want to blow 60 quid on a night out' or 'I dont want to get mashed up". Very bizarre for me, i know a lot of people who drink one or two 'glasses' when they go out and no more. The idea of eating great food without a decent bottle of wine is fucking sacrilege to me too. Why do the non-drinkers equate drinking to getting drunk? When i smoke blow, i dont smoke it until i cant speak or move (except round at alex's on the odd occasion), so why when discussing alcohol does it have to be avoided otherwise you end up bladdered? What happened to moderation?

7 pages and that's one of the things you comment on.

 

You, you, dabbler, you

 

I'm more of a dabber than a dabbler.

[Fop 1]

Doesn't mean they should stay illegal necessarily, but equally who knows what new strains they'll put the NHS under in 30 years time.

 

Another possible reason to control and tax it?

 

Hasn't worked so well for smoking or alcohol related diseases though.

[Ketsbaia 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/11/un-drug-strategy

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...drugs-policy-un

[Toonpack 6913]

Leah Betts died of drinking too much water - not due to the actual drugs. A drugs advisor got into trounble a couple of weeks ago for having the temerity to state that more people die pursuing horse riding (which could be said to be adrenalin based) than did through ecstacy but was then bullied into withdrawing the remarks.

I know she did. She essentially died of ignorance/lack of knowledge. She thought you had to drink loads of water when you were on ecstasy even though she was in the home and not out dancing in a club. Her kidneys couldn't cope. What a waste of a life. But the overwhelming message of the UK anti-drugs campaign in the aftermath of that was telling people one pill could kill you. The people doing it were clued-up enough on the risk of that to ignore that message altogether.

I read about the rest of what you said too. The debate never seems to be able to be based on cold hard facts. It has to be emotional for some reason.

 

 

My view is that the increase of drugs use reflects a recognition of the hypocrisy of the establishment and a lessening of the authority it has. I think in the past "drugs are bad m'kay" was taken as correct by the majority of society as they were conditioned that government knew best.

 

Nowadays however, people can see that drugs aren't as bad as made out and recognise the argument of comparing them with alcohol and tobacco - the argument from authority has been lost.

 

I see parallels with how religions teach about sexual morality - people are recognising that taking responsibility for your actions which harm nobody else cannot be "wrong" or "sinful".

 

This only leaves fear of prosecution as a deterrent which is wrong - laws should be "obviously" about harming other people - ie they should stand up to a moral test.

 

The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

[Guest alex]

Leah Betts died of drinking too much water - not due to the actual drugs. A drugs advisor got into trounble a couple of weeks ago for having the temerity to state that more people die pursuing horse riding (which could be said to be adrenalin based) than did through ecstacy but was then bullied into withdrawing the remarks.

I know she did. She essentially died of ignorance/lack of knowledge. She thought you had to drink loads of water when you were on ecstasy even though she was in the home and not out dancing in a club. Her kidneys couldn't cope. What a waste of a life. But the overwhelming message of the UK anti-drugs campaign in the aftermath of that was telling people one pill could kill you. The people doing it were clued-up enough on the risk of that to ignore that message altogether.

I read about the rest of what you said too. The debate never seems to be able to be based on cold hard facts. It has to be emotional for some reason.

 

 

My view is that the increase of drugs use reflects a recognition of the hypocrisy of the establishment and a lessening of the authority it has. I think in the past "drugs are bad m'kay" was taken as correct by the majority of society as they were conditioned that government knew best.

 

Nowadays however, people can see that drugs aren't as bad as made out and recognise the argument of comparing them with alcohol and tobacco - the argument from authority has been lost.

 

I see parallels with how religions teach about sexual morality - people are recognising that taking responsibility for your actions which harm nobody else cannot be "wrong" or "sinful".

 

This only leaves fear of prosecution as a deterrent which is wrong - laws should be "obviously" about harming other people - ie they should stand up to a moral test.

 

The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

Is that purely down to that though? I think there are other factors, like education (or the method of existing and lack of decent sex education - ironically often due to moral objections). It's also a shame that a kid is a ticket to a council house. When did we start thinking in this country that we're entitled to our own house at the age of 16/17/18 despite not having a job and so on? It's seems bizarre at best to me.

[NJS 3986]

The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

 

There is a direct correlation in the US between the states that teach abstinence only and the "wait for marriage" stance you are suggesting and the highest rates of teen pregancies.

 

I think in this country people are frightened culturally to really talk about sex and that's what causes problems. I also think the root cause of the baby/benefit culture is more complicated than sexual morality - it comes down to education, poverty, class and opportunities.

[Toonpack 6913]

The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

 

There is a direct correlation in the US between the states that teach abstinence only and the "wait for marriage" stance you are suggesting and the highest rates of teen pregancies.

 

I think in this country people are frightened culturally to really talk about sex and that's what causes problems. I also think the root cause of the baby/benefit culture is more complicated than sexual morality - it comes down to education, poverty, class and opportunities.

 

There is no such thing as "real" poverty in this country, I agree on the class thing though, but only in so much as there's an underclass and no amount of opportunity will change them.

[NJS 3986]

The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

 

There is a direct correlation in the US between the states that teach abstinence only and the "wait for marriage" stance you are suggesting and the highest rates of teen pregancies.

 

I think in this country people are frightened culturally to really talk about sex and that's what causes problems. I also think the root cause of the baby/benefit culture is more complicated than sexual morality - it comes down to education, poverty, class and opportunities.

 

There is no such thing as "real" poverty in this country, I agree on the class thing though, but only in so much as there's an underclass and no amount of opportunity will change them.

 

Poverty is always relative though - in the last 30 years it has been ingrained into people that only having a house/plasma/car/holiday makes life worth living and when you have no chance of that by "decent" means then other methods appeal.

 

That doesn't mean I think that having those items/lifestyle is "wrong" as such - I'd just try and ensure they are gained by better means.

[Guest alex]

The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

 

There is a direct correlation in the US between the states that teach abstinence only and the "wait for marriage" stance you are suggesting and the highest rates of teen pregancies.

 

I think in this country people are frightened culturally to really talk about sex and that's what causes problems. I also think the root cause of the baby/benefit culture is more complicated than sexual morality - it comes down to education, poverty, class and opportunities.

 

There is no such thing as "real" poverty in this country, I agree on the class thing though, but only in so much as there's an underclass and no amount of opportunity will change them.

 

Poverty is always relative though - in the last 30 years it has been ingrained into people that only having a house/plasma/car/holiday makes life worth living and when you have no chance of that by "decent" means then other methods appeal.

 

That doesn't mean I think that having those items/lifestyle is "wrong" as such - I'd just try and ensure they are gained by better means.

Exactly.

[Rob W 0]

"Poverty is always relative though - in the last 30 years it has been ingrained into people that only having a house/plasma/car/holiday makes life worth living and when you have no chance of that by "decent" means then other methods appeal.

 

That doesn't mean I think that having those items/lifestyle is "wrong" as such - I'd just try and ensure they are gained by better means."

 

exactly - I could do the "when I was a lad times were tough...." but you have to realise times move on

 

and the times of "moral standards" were full of hypocrisy and don't do as I do but as I say

[Fop 1]

There is no such thing as "real" poverty in this country, I agree on the class thing though, but only in so much as there's an underclass and no amount of opportunity will change them.

 

I'm not sure it's "real" poverty that matters (in this specific context), it is more "relative" poverty and social structure and education.

 

Probably a bit of genetics too, but that'll never be PC to look at.

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

Lost in a symptom: The Nation on marijuana reform

 

The surest way to ensure the continued abuse of people of color under the auspices of the drug war is to reduce or eliminate any corresponding threat to white Americans. This seems to me to be such a fundamental of realpolitik in the United States that I’m still a little bit astonished that The Nation, in a recent assessment of marijuana reform efforts and racial bias, can’t see any forest from the trees.

 

Not a single fact about marijuana use and the racial bias that law enforcement exhibits with regard to the drug is askew, of course. I agree with the article’s author, Dr. Carl Hart of Columbia University, on his entire statistical premise:

 

“Consider a recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union showing that black people are two to over seven times more likely to be arrested for pot possession than their white counterparts, despite the fact that both groups use marijuana at similar rates,” notes Dr. Hart. ”These disparities held up even when researchers controlled for household income. It’s about race, not class.”

 

Full agreement as far as that goes. But there is, I believe, a statistical equivocation in the ensuing paragraph:

 

“Each year, there are more than 700,000 marijuana arrests, which account for more than half of all drug arrests. And now, largely because of the selective targeting of African-American males, one in three black boys born today will spend time in prison if we don’t take action to end this type of discrimination.”

 

Whoa. While I am entirely aware that marijuana arrests account for over 50 percent of all drug arrests, and while African-American and Latino suspects are certainly arrested at disproportionate rates despite comparable white marijuana use is certain, I believe that the extraordinary rates of incarceration of African-Americans — or all Americans, for that matter — is the result of overall drug enforcement of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other hard drugs.

 

This is not to say that there are not thousands of incarcerated for marijuana arrests, especially at the state level. In some states, draconian enforcement of marijuana statutes, especially coupled with repeat-offender statutes, has certainly resulted in the imprisonment of Americans, and likely those unfortunates are dispropotionately people of color. But as many urban and high-population states have for the last several decades been liberalizing marijuana laws and reducing or eliminating prison penalties on the drug, the greater share of those incarcerated – and not merely arrested — under U.S. drug statutes has been comprised of hard-drug defendants. And those number in the hundreds of thousands.

 

Certainly, marijuana enforcement is an opportunity for law enforcement to profile, harass and penalize minorities. And certainly, a marijuana arrest can be used to establish a criminal history, achieve probationary verdicts and put people of color under the control of the criminal justice system. To the extent that defendants opt for suspended sentences and then are rearrested, or find themselves arrested in that minority of states with retrograde marijuana codes, incarcerative outcomes do occur. But Dr. Hart’s linkage of the ACLU report of racial bias in marijuana enforcement to the appalling percentage of African-American males who will serve prison time needs to be carefully uncoupled.

 

One in three African-American boys born today will be imprisoned at some point not because of marijuana enforcement, but because of the entirety of the drug war — and only by dealing with all of drug enforcement and its subtext of racial and class control will that trend ever abate, much less be reversed. Only by addressing political reform to the use or trafficking of those drugs that drive the majority of prison sentences for drug crimes will the country begin to address itself to the mechanism that has put 2.3 million Americans behind bars and made us the jailingest society in human history.

 

Which brings me back to my initial political worry when it comes to marijuana reform, which, regrettably, has been over-simplified and mischaracterized in some quarters as it volleys about on the internets. Here, again:

 

Yes, marijuana is among the least dangerous prohibited substances in the drug world. Yes, any continuing criminal arrests for its use are dysfunctional and draconian. Yes, as with any drug law, such arrests target people of color disproportionately. But accept as well that marijuana is also the most basic and fundamental place where white, middle-class and affluent America intersects with the drug war. It is the place where many, many white families of economic means and political relevance encounter even the most moderate risk to their status and future. For the majority of that cohort, it is the only place where the drug war’s rubber actually hits any stretch of suburban blacktop.

 

Of course, it is impossible to argue against the immediate practicalities of liberalizing marijuana use and reducing the criminal penalties such. In a country with our levels of alcohol use, no one should be incarcerated or even criminally arrested for smoking weed. But in so liberalizing this single sphere of our national drug war, the actual political isolation of the poor, and of poor people of color especially, will deepen. Having removed much of the white, middle-class interaction with drug enforcement from the equation, those who are championing marijuana reform and ignoring the overall disaster of the drug war will be perpetuating the fundamental and continuing injustice.

 

Think not? Consider the draft.

 

Yes, the military draft of the Vietnam era — as it was implemented, replete with college deferments — fell disproportionately on the working-class and the poor, and therefore on young men of color. And yes, the transition away from the logic of selective service to an all-volunteer military consigned any mandatory enforcement of that disparity to the ash heap. It also, as a matter of military practicality, made the volunteer military a much more committed and effective institution, by all accounts, and no one at the Pentagon will be speaking again any time soon of any return to a compulsory draft.

 

But the fundamental political change in the end of compulsory military service has been the grand departure of our most politically influential class from any organized opposition to military interventions. Once middle-class and upper-class children were secure from any required military service and the corresponding risks from attritive wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the U.S. government had effectively freed itself from any requirement of widespread popular support for maintaining wars of choice, regardless of casualty rates. The departure of the draft has made U.S. overseas interventions far more likely to be initiated and far more likely to be maintained, even as the overall popularity of the intervention wanes.

 

If white folk — and middle-class and affluent white folk at that — aren’t directly threatened by a policy or program, the chance of getting them out in the street, or even actively engaging with the government in any campaign for reform is minimized. So, too, with the drug war.

 

Mandatory minimum sentences and the elimination of federal parole, three-time-loser laws and draconian sentencing matrices were all well and good when the presumed targets were the underclass, the feared drug gangs of inner city America. Only in the past decade — as prison populations have soared, methamphetamine has entrenched itself among whites in the American West, and the shrugging economy has sent more and more of the white working-class and underclass to the corner — have white folk been swept in greater numbers into the national dragnet, resulting in growing disenchantment with the drug war across the racial spectrum. Yet even still, for many white families, marijuana remains the singular and most obvious point of vulnerability to America’s obsession with drug prohibition. Eliminate the drug war’s most fundamental perceived threat to the white midde class and the air is going to rush out of the growing national opposition with the drug war so fast that our heads will spin.

 

Is that argument enough to eschew the very rational removal of marijuana enforcement from the drug war arsenal? Maybe not. It’s hard to leave those absurd laws intact when an opportunity exists to mitigate the damage done to those defendants — black and white — who are being prosecuted, however more modestly than with prohibitions against harder drugs.

 

But the least that people of goodwill can do is to stop pretending that forward movement on marijuana alone is anything less than an accommodation with an existing war of social control that is being waged disproportionately on the urban poor and is utilizing the prohibitions against harder drugs for the greater share of its incarcerative dynamic. Marijuana is not the core reason for our crowded prisons, and the reform of marijuana laws is, at best, triage for a failed and dystopic system that will be given another lease on life once the politically relevant portion of white America is given a pass. Removing weed from the overall equation will, in the end, consign increasingly-isolated poor people of color to the brutalities of the drug war for the foreseeable future. The game will still be the game for them, and a cruel and rigged game it will remain.

 

http://davidsimon.com/lost-in-a-symptom-the-nation-on-marijuana-reform/

 

Wire Creator David Simon very cogently questions the legalisation of da weed.

[Park Life 70]

Still haven't watched all of that.

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.rmcortes.com/books/jury/Jury-Illustrated.pdf

[Tooj 17]

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/amazing-photographs-drugs-under-microscope

 

Some class photos in here.