Legalising sex work means legalising the trading of bodies as a commodity. The practice is disempowering and undermining human rights, not vice-versa. It remains immoral that the state should grant such transactions and introduce prostitution as a career path. By legalising sex work to control HIV, the state becomes an active agent in illegitimate practices. Further, the state makes money while no gains are made for workers. Who really benefits from legalisation?


Sex work is legitimate work.  Sex work is employment, and therefore requires legal protection. It remains the government responsibility to provide security for their productive workforce and enable them to organise, and unionise. Sex work empowers women and men by providing a means of income, independence and control over sexual practices, and flexible employment. A legal framework will enable sex workers to be able to unionise. Unions remain a source of power in politics.  Recognising sex work as legitimate work enables positive intervention. Firstly, taxes can be collected by the state; and social security schemes established. Pensions can be set up and a safety-net for if workers become ill and or infected provided. Sex workers will be recognised as citizens, contributing to national wealth. Secondly, labour laws - such as minimal wages, hours, and safety, can be implemented. Labour laws are a means of regulating conditions of employment and workplaces preventing exploitation [1] .  [1] ILO (2013) defines ‘decent work’ as productive work; work whereby rights are guaranteed and social protection provided; and work that promotes social organisations.


Introducing new ‘good’ laws can drive sex work activities underground, and contradictorily reduce access to necessary health care services. Legislation does not ensure universal access: legalising sex work does not stop unequal politics.  First, the provision of HIV/AIDS treatment and care is dependent on the global-economy and influenced by investor faiths, ethics, and motives [1] . Therefore access to ART (Antiretroviral treatment) among sex workers is controlled by who is providing aid and distributing resources. Second, the most effective prevention strategy is believed to be ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom). Such mottos exclude sex workers, and directly place the burden of HIV/AIDS to the individual. Such mottos are founded on strong Christian beliefs - legalising sex work cannot easily change traditional structures.  [1] A decline in global AID funding has been noted with the global economic downturn (World Bank, 2011). Further, the impact of faith-based institutions, and PEPFAR’s ‘anti-prostitution pledge’, on HIV/AIDS has been discussed (NSWP, 2011 Avert, 2013).


Gender equality.  Engaging in sex work is a choice; a reflection of individual agency, whereby control is granted over their own body. One has the right to choose how they use their body; therefore legalising sex work legitimising a woman’s, or man’s, right over their body and sexuality.


Decriminalising increses sex workers’ rights.  Sex workers remain stigmatised across Africa. Legalising sex work enables the practice to be decriminalised, and rights provided.  Being a sex worker where it is illegal creates additional risks and vulnerabilities. Reports from South Africa show that criminalizing sex workers makes them more likely to be victims of inhuman police action [1] . Sex workers are raped, abused, and harassed. The risk of unsafe sex is therefore practiced outside of their occupation as no legal rights are provided. Legalising, and subsequently decriminalising, sex work will first, tackle corrupt police soliciting sex. Secondly, a new rights framework is provided. Sex workers are able to fight exploitation and claim rights for protection by prosecuting perpetrators if raped or abused.  Sex work will continue either way - but legalising it means legal safety, protection, and negotiation, is provided.  [1] The legalisation of sex work has been introduced by the ANC Women's League (ANCWL) in South Africa. See further readings: BBC, 2012; Daily News, 2013)


The reality of a causal relation between legalising sex work and decriminalisation remains questionable. Accepting sex work within the legal framework does not ensure the practice is de-stigmatised or becomes regulated. Such contradictions indicate the depth of social stigmatisation towards sex work.  Taking the case of Senegal, where prostitution has been legalised, police abuse continues and sex workers actively choose to work in unregulated environments. In Senegal’s booming sex trade industry, prostitutes are required to register with the police and granted a identity card confirming health requirements have been met. However, their identification places sex workers open to discrimination by the police and social stigma [1] . Further, the legalisation of the industry in Senegal has attracted immigrants and refugees to work within the industry. They lack citizenship rights; therefore legal protection is limited and abused. Clandestine sex work remains prevalent. Sex workers represent around 18% of HIV prevalence, particularly higher amongst women (Aids Alliance, 2013).  Sex workers rights will only emerge once sex work is de-stigmatised, the act of selling sex is no longer taboo, and corrupt laws changed to provide sex workers with respect and protection beyond the law. The stigma of sex work is the basis of illegality and criminalisation.  [1] Senegal has a predominantly muslim population.


Gender inequality, hierarchies and violence, will become legalised [1] . Across Africa, women account for a higher proportion of the population living with HIV - gender inequalities are a key driver of the epidemic. For example, patriarchal structures encourage polygamy in marriage; and women’s roles in the reproductive sphere forces them into the caregiver role when someone in the household gets HIV/AIDS.  The legalisation of sex work will ensure the epidemic continues to ‘feminise’. Women will become commodified, meeting male demands and desires, within a unequal gender society.  [1] Further readings on the debate of gender and sex work see: Richter, 2012.


The inclusion of youths and children misses out a crucial component - poverty. Busza (2006) identifies three forms of ‘sexual exchange’: sex work, transactional sex, and survival sex. Children are often recruited into the sex trade as a result of poverty, desires for consumption, and a lack of social support.  The ”sugar daddy” phenomenon across Africa is a case in point. Older men are able to entice young women, and children, through false promises and material products [1] .  Without providing key necessities, and alternatives to meet needs, practices will be driven further underground and youngsters placed at greater risk.  [1] For examples see: IRIN, 2013a; 2013b.


Legalising ensures health care and safe sex.  Legalising sex work will enable regulation. Responsive laws can promote safe sex practices and enable access to health services [1] .  Firstly, sex workers fear asking for health assistance, and treatment in public services, due to the illegal and criminalised nature of sex work. WHO (2011) predicted 1 in 3 sex workers received adequate HIV prevention; and less are able to access additional health services. Access is limited due to the criminalised status, but also cost of treatment and transport, inconvenient opening hours, and humiliation [2] . Secondly, the illegal nature of sex work has been attached to safe-practice tools. In Namibia, where prostitution remains commonly practiced but illegal, the criminalisation of accessing condoms enhances vulnerabilities. Following stop and searches by the police 50% of sex workers reported their condoms were destroyed (OSF, 2012). Within the 50%, 75% subsequently had unprotected sex. Being defined as illegal puts workers at greater risk.  Through legalisation sex workers can access tests and openly seek treatment, care and support.  [1] ICASA, 2013, has argued national responses need to enable inclusive, and universal, access to health care treatment to combat HIV/AIDS.  [2] See further readings: Mtewwa et al, 2013.


Monitoring who enters the sex trade.  By including sex workers under a legal framework regulatory rules can be imposed on who enters the profession, such as is found in Senegal. The introduction of Senegal’s Identity Card means frequent health checks are required upon registration to be a prostitute. Additionally, the use of children and youths within the sex industry can be controlled.  Global estimations of HIV/AIDS show young people are at highest risk. The UNDP (2013) called for a legal framework able to ensure the protection of children and youths. Regulation and monitoring is the only way to do so.


By legalising sex work the duty, and ethics, of care are granted to national bodies. The state is able to intervene and act when the rights of sex workers are identified as being breached. The individual self becomes empowered, and integrated into, a legal framework.


Legalising sex work means control and regulation can be imposed on all aspects of the industry. Legalization ensures the sex workers are recognised as citizens, and workers, with rights. It does not preclude similar action relating to the demand aspect.


The causality is wrong.  Legalisation doesn’t prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, safe sex, or effective regulation. Workers need to be taught about safe sex; safe sex needs to be legalised; and HIV transmission criminalised. National governments need to concentrate on providing access to prevention tools - such as condoms.  Legalisation should not suddenly be announced by government but only done if it is what sex workers want and is the best option for them, this can be done through consolations with groups such as the Global Network of Sex Workers Projects(see NSWP, 2013), to help formulate policy that will work for everyone


Legalization leaves ‘risk’ in the hands of the worker.  Legalising sex as work, puts the burden of risk to the sex workers themselves; and having its basis from European law models raises questions over applicability across Africa. Although, in theory, a legal framework will enhance a duty of rights and a voice for workers, it also becomes the individual who need to be aware of rights, safe practices, and security risks. Legalisation means individuals become responsible. However, when considering how youths are lured into cities, and workers enter the profession following promised opportunities, is that ‘just’? Before legalising the profession individuals need to be granted choices to not engage in such practices. The family relations forcing migration and prostitution need evaluation. How much power can national legislation have when traditional, local, and family power relations limit choices to enter sex work? Will state actors follow laws when sex work remains culturally unacceptable? Further, legalization needs to be met with opportunities to exit the industry.


The market framework: sex work is an industry.  Sex work needs to be understood as a market-based industry. Sex workers are influenced by supply and demand [1] . It needs to be questioned both who, what, and why sex workers are forced into sexual exchanges and alternatively, why demand is found.  The legalisation of sex work focuses on the supply-side - potentially ensuring safer, and just, practices for sex workers. However, demand is not resolved. First, legalization does not ensure customers are tested for HIV/AIDS and take precautions. Legalisation may not change behaviour or attitudes. Second, legalization may increase demand through sex tourism, commercial trafficking or exploitation. What drives the sex industry? Legalisation will result in expanding the sex industry, as seen in the 25% increase in the Netherlands following legalisation (Daley, 2001). In Uganda, condom use declines with more regular customers (Morris et al, 2009).  We need to ask what should be included within a legal framework - supply, demand; brothels, customers, or sex workers?  [1] The ‘Swedish model’ rolled out in Europe is based on tackling demand. The legal reforms have been set to target the demand for prostitution through its criminalisation.


Criminalising HIV transmission puts human rights in greater jeopardy. The stigmatisation of HIV/AIDS will remain prominent. The acceptance, and inclusion, of sex workers will become further marginalised as they become symbols of risk, disease, and transmission. This is something no sex worker would want. Countless articles from Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa suggest public support legalising sex work (i.e. see Ghana Web, 2013).


This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves? Hindu thought potentially embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART). [1] Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism.  [1] Tierney, John, ‘Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion’, The New York Times, 20 November 2007,


Playing God  Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural processes, but the creation of a new and wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. Clerics within the Catholic, Muslim and Jewish faiths have all expressed their opposition to human cloning. However, this objection to cloning is not specifically theological. David Hume, the eighteenth-century Scottish moral philosopher, warned us to heed our feelings as much as our logical reasoning. Leon R. Kass of the University of Chicago has stated in relation to human cloning, that mere failure to produce scientific reasons against the technology does not mean we should deny our strong and instinctive reactions to it. As he states, there is a "wisdom in repugnance". [1]  [1] Kass, Leon R., ‘The Wisdom of Repugnance’, New Republic, Vol. 216, Issue 22, 2 June 1997,


This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age. Society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually, whether by accident or design. Existing lawful practices such as sperm donation allow deliberate procreation without knowledge of the identity of the father. Surely it is preferable for a mother to know the genetic heritage of her offspring, rather than accept sperm from an unknown and random donor? Moreover, reproductive cloning will allow lesbian couples to have children genetically related to them both. It might be better for the welfare of the child for it to be born into a happy relationship, but the high rates of single parenthood and divorce suggest that this is not always possible.


Cloning treats children as objects  Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an expensive technological process that is subject to quality control. The gulf between an artisan and an artefact is immense. Individuals will be able to have a child for the sake of having children, or as a symbol of status, rather than because they desire to conceive, love and raise another human being. Cloning will not only allow, but actually encourage, the commodification of people.


Cloning is unsafe  The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, from which only one healthy and viable sheep was produced. [1] The other foetuses were hideously deformed and either died or were aborted. Even today, cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries. [2]  Moreover, Ian Wilmut and other commentators have noted that we cannot know whether clones will suffer from premature ageing as a result of their elderly genes. Dolly the sheep herself suffered from premature arthritis. [3] There are also fears that the reprogramming of the nucleus of a somatic cell in order to trigger the cell division that leads to the cloning of an individual may result in a significantly increased risk of cancer.  [1] Barnes, Deborah, ‘Research in the News: Creating a Cloned Sheep Named Dolly’, National Institutes of Health Office Science Education,   [2] University of Utah, Learn Genetics: Cloning,  , accessed 08/20/2011  [3] Kilner J., Human Cloning: What's at Stake, published 08/10/2004,  , accessed 08/20/2011


Cloning is in this respect no different from any other new medical technology. Research is required on embryos in order to quantify and reduce the risk of the procedures. Embryo research is permitted in Britain until the fourteenth day of embryo development. Many other Western countries are also actively engaged in embryo research. The thousands of ‘spare’ embryos generated each year by IVF procedures and destroyed could be used to the good purpose of human cloning research. It should be noted that cloning has come a long way since dolly in 1997. In 2008 Japanese scientists managed to create clones from the bodies of mice which had been frozen for 16 years. [1]  [1] BBC News, Scientists clone from frozen mice,  , accessed 08/20/2011


The decision making and the effort that will be required to clone a human suggests that the child will be highly valued by its parent or parents. Furthermore, we should not pretend that every child conceived by sexual procreation is born to wholly well-intentioned parents. The desire to have ‘a son and heir’ is common around the world but does not concern the welfare of the future child. Similarly, children are often conceived out of marital custom, in order to consolidate a relationship, or even in order to gain free accommodation from local housing authorities. Finally, many children are not intended at all, but are born as a result of unplanned pregnancies. There would be no fear of ‘accidental cloning’ that could bring a child to a parent who was unprepared, or unwilling, to love it.


When people resort to talking in wholly empty abstract terms about ‘human dignity’ you can be sure that they have no evidence or arguments to back up their position. It is difficult to understand why the act of sexual intercourse that leads to sexual procreation is any more ‘dignified’ or respectable than a reasoned decision by an adult to have a child, that is assisted by modern science. The thousands of children given life through IVF therapy do not suffer a lack of dignity as a consequence of their method of procreation. The Catholic church regards every embryo from the moment of existence as a living person. This position is not shared by most Western governments, and it would deny not only cloning, but IVF and all the medical knowledge and benefits that have accrued from embryo research.


Cloning harms families  Reproductive cloning harms the integrity of the family. Single people will be able to produce offspring without even the physical presence of a partner. Once born, the child will be denied the love of one parent, most probably the father. Several theologians have recognised that a child is a symbolic expression of the mutual love of its parents, and their hope for the future. This sign of love is lost when a child’s life begins in a laboratory.


Cloning violates human dignity  Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the declaration of the Catholic church in relation to the new reproductive technologies, holds that procreation outside the conjugal union is morally wrong. [1] Many secular organisations, such as the WHO [2] and UNESCO [3] have issued statements that similarly find cloning violates human dignity. Assisted reproductive technologies might all be seen as challenges to human dignity, including IVF and sperm donation. However, human cloning is a completely artificial form of reproduction, which leaves no trace of the dignity of human procreation.  [1] Cardinal Ratzinger, Joseph, ‘Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day’, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,   [2] Brock, Dan W., ‘Cloning Human Beings’, e-3,   [3] The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights’, UNESCO 29th General Conference, 11 November 1997,


Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practice of sperm donation allows heterosexual couples to reproduce where one partner is sterile. Moreover, merely 300 babies are adopted each year in the United Kingdom. [1] It might be better for potential parents to give their love to existing babies rather than attempt to bring their own offspring into an already crowded world.  [1] Thompson, Joanna, ‘Is Adoption A Better Way’, CARE Centres Network,


Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population as it is creating genetic copies rather than increasing diversity by mixing genes. [1] The natural process of evolution will be halted, and as such humankind will be denied development, and may be rendered more susceptible to disease.  [1] ThinkQuest, Disadvantages of human cloning,  , accessed 08/20/2011


Clones will still be individuals  There is much more danger of eugenics associated with developments in gene therapy and genetic testing and screening, rather than human cloning. The notion of clones of Hitler is frankly preposterous. Psychologists have shown that nurture is at least as important as genes in determining personality. It would be impossible to produce another Hitler, or Elvis, or whomever, by cloning or any other ART. Clones (people with identical genes) would by no means be identical in every respect. You only need to look at identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) to see how wrong that assumption is, and how different the personalities, preferences, and skills of people with identical genes can be. [1] The idea of breeding huge fighting forces is also confined to the realm of science fiction. The necessity of thousands of willing mothers, the nine month gestation process, and the many years rearing this child towards adulthood, means that cloning would hardly be an efficient technique for any mad dictator to raise an army. And there is no reason, in any case, to suppose that a clone would be any more willing or effective a soldier than any other human being - clones (like twins) are just as conscious and free as everyone else.  [1] Harris, John, ‘”Goodbye Dolly” The ethics of human cloning’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 23, 1997, pp.353-360,


Cloning should be allowed for those who can’t otherwise have a child  The desire to have one’s own child and to nurture it is wholly natural. The longing for a child genetically related to oneself existed long before biotechnology, but it is only recently that medicine has been able to satisfy it. In vitro fertilisation remains an imperfect technology. Couples typically submit to four cycles of costly treatment before producing a child as the chances of having a child can be as low as 10%. [1] Evidently, the technique does not assist homosexual couples, couples where both partners lack gametes, or where the female partner suffers from a mitochondrial disease. Cloning would allow a child to be born to all these couples.  [1] Wildsen S., Human Cloning – role of the scientist, West Virginia University,  , accessed 08/20/2011


Will allow the elimination of diseases  Cloning is unlikely to be widespread so any dangers from any reduction in the diversity of the human gene pool will be so limited as to be virtually non-existent. The expense and time necessary for successful human cloning should mean that it will only be used to the benefit of the small minority of people who require the technology. The pleasure of procreation through sexual intercourse does not suggest that whole populations will prefer to reproduce asexually through cloning. The only significant lack of diversity which can be expected will be in women who suffer from a severe mitochondrial disease. They will be able to use cloning by nuclear transfer in order to avoid passing on the disease which is carried in their egg cells to any offspring. This elimination of harmful genetic traits from the gene pool is no different from the eradication of infectious disease, such as small pox, and should be welcomed. So against these very marginal worries there is potentially great good to be done through cloning. Currently already we have IVF and genetic screening which can prevent that babies with certain diseases are born. In 2000 the baby Adam Nash was born, genetically manipulated through IVF, as a genetic fit to cure his sister Molly from Fanconi anemia. [1] While this was not cloning it gives an idea what cloning could possibly cure. It could be a way of curing siblings from chronic diseases and also ensuring that the transplants (for example) will not be rejected due to genetic differences.  [1] BBC News, ‘Designer baby’ ethics fear, published 10/04/2000,  , accessed 08/20/2011


Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of people. An American geneticist, Dr. Dan Brock, has already identified a trend towards ‘new and benign eugenics’ that is perpetrated by developments in biotechnology. This can particularly be seen on a small scale with ‘designer babies’. [1] When people are able to clone themselves they will be able to choose which type of person shall be born. This seems uncomfortably close to the Nazi concept of breeding a race of Aryan superhumans, whilst eliminating those individuals whose characteristics they considered unhealthy. The ‘Boys from Brazil’ scenario of clones of Hitler, the baby farms of ‘Brave New World’, or even the cloning or armies of identical and disposable soldiers, might soon be a very real prospect.  [1] BBC News, Designer baby row over US clinic, published 03/02/2009,  , accessed 08/22/2011


Of course all drugs can be abused but introducing one into the system full in the knowledge that it will be abused is an entirely different matter. On the basis of the balance of probabilities, the moment any government says that cannabis is safe to use and, more than that, beneficial to health then every pothead in that jurisdiction has an excuse.  The only way the War on Drugs can work is if prohibition is applied universally. We expect doctors to work within the law and the government, along with medical governing bodies, has a role in determining what it is appropriate to prescribe and what is not [i] .  There are no situations where society simply stands back and leaves it to individual clinicians to act without guidance. They act within a framework that gives primacy to clinical need but does not ignore the wider social implications. Society regulates when a doctor can rules that someone is incapable of work or needs surgery at the expense of the state. In this particular regard, governments feel that society is best served by not adding cannabis to the pharmaceutical melting pot.  [i] Comment. “Kent Doctor Richard Scott Warned Over Faith Discussion”. BBC. 23 May 2011.


All drugs can be used for a variety of purposes some appropriate some inappropriate that’s a matter of choice, treatment should be based on medical reality  Any drug, legal or illegal, can be used sensibly or it can be abused. If society bases its decisions on the medical provision of drugs on the presumption of abuse the shelves of most drugstores would be empty. The idea that the burden of proof should be set at demonstrating that nothing else can achieve the same results is absurd – let’s ban Codeine because Aspirin works just fine. Drugs that have similar effects are distinguished according to the speed, duration and efficacy of those effects, in addition to the drug’s side-effects. Different individuals experience the pain-relieving effects of aspirin in different ways. A wider range of individuals may experience a longer lasting reduction in pain if taking codeine. Similarly, an even larger number of individuals respond positively to cannabis.  The reality is that we trust doctors to make judgments on what is a sensible course of treatment, not politicians and certainly not a hysterical media.  As the law currently stands, politicians are stopping medical professionals from making decisions in the best interest of their patients because nobody wants to be seen to blink first. California and Nebraska already blinked, as have Austria, Canada, Spain and Germany as well as other nations. A failure to recognize this fact is simple political cowardice [i] .  [i]


Ultimately, in most countries where this is even under discussion, politicians run away from this issue because there are no votes in it. The people don’t want it and that view must be respected.  Drugs policy is, ultimately driven by a standard of what the people in a democratic nation consider appropriate; a couple of drinks after work on a Friday is okay, getting stoned on a regular basis isn’t.  Governments have a responsibility to set out a moral code that is acceptable to the broadest possible spectrum of the society they represent. If they accept that cannabis can be used to alleviate suffering in patients then why not accept that it is okay to drink at work. Both substances have a similar pain relieving effect, both have similar negative effects. It is easy to envisage, on the basis of the proposition side argument given above, that an individual may claim that alcohol does more to address his various aches and pains than aspirin or codeine. Society works because there are limits.


Cannabis has many medical properties, notably the alleviation of suffering in chronic diseases. It should therefore be freely available  Cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes for at least 5,000 years most frequently as an analgesic, that is to say it reduces pain. It also stimulates hunger and can be used as an anti-emetic to control nausea and vomiting. As the DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young noted in a 1988 ruling [i] , there is no evidence of a fatality resulting from the misuse of cannabis. Indeed the Dutch government currently permits doctors regulated by its Ministry of Health and Welfare to prescribe cannabis to their patients. Further, the Dutch state has licensed a pharmaceutical firm to provide cannabis of a guaranteed level of purity to pharmacies and medical professionals. [ii]  There are accounts and studies of its successful application to treat the effects of chemotherapy as well as its palliative [iii] use in MS and AIDS [iv] . For governments to turn their backs on a perfectly useful drug simply to prove a point is confusing at best and petulant at worst.  [i] Docket No. 86-22. “OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF Administrative LAW JUDGE.” FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge. 6 September 1988.  [ii] Bedrocan BV home page, 15 November 2011.   [iii] “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” Espacenet patent search. 07 October 2003.   [iv] “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” Patentstorm. 07 October 2003.


Government has a role in establishing what is an acceptable level of behaviour within society. Full in the knowledge that some people will use any substance responsibly and others less so, governments make decisions to protect their citizens and to show a lead. It is the settled will of most people in most countries that cannabis is not a drug they consider acceptable for use in a modern society. Furthermore, there are plenty of other drugs that can be used for all of the uses Proposition has identified. Legalizing cannabis for medical use would send out the message that it is safe to use when all practical evidence suggests that the social, if not the medical, ramifications are anything but safe. Proposition need to demonstrate a medical use for cannabis that cannot be met by existing pharmaceuticals.


For governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological  The current legislation on drug use in most countries was delivered without canvassing medical opinion and under the influence of public hysteria and moral panic. Seemingly logical but flawed theories linking the use of “soft” drugs to later use of “harder” varieties (cocain, amphetamins) have often been used both to justify and to promote drugs legislation. The apparent sense of these arguments belies the fact that they have been repeatedly disproven [i] .  Lurid, prurient portrayals of the catastrophic consequences of narcotics use in the mass media are frequently used to back up arguments that drugs- even cannabis- are so dangerous that even carefully controlled medical applications are unacceptably risky.  It is clearly the case that when any substance has a proven medical benefit it should be available for prescription. Legislation already exists in most countries to contain the possibility of misuse of prescribed drugs.  However, it is clearly the case that politicians are avoiding this issue not because there is medical doubt on the matter but because they are incapable of reaching a logical conclusion for fear of hysterical – and easy – headlines. To withhold treatment from patients who need it on the basis that a tabloid will run a ‘Soft on Drugs’ story the following morning is the height of irresponsibility.  [i] Degenhardt, L, et al. “Whoare the new amphetamine users? A ten year prospective study of young Australians. Adiction, volume 102, 8, p1269-1279. August 2007.


Government policy on this issue has long been confused. When it is perfectly acceptable for politicians, celebrities and other public figures to admit that they have broken the law and face no sanction, it is time for the law to change. Virtually all of the societal problems caused by its usage are directly as a result of its illegality. None of those problems speak to its role in a medical setting.  When not under the threat of tabloid headlines, opinion leaders from across the political spectrum accept that this makes sense [i] . The difficulty is that policy makers only accept the fact after they’re in office, not while they’re facing election. The use of the word ‘Former’ in pronouncements on this subject is noticeable  [i] Lyn Nofziger, former Press Secretary to Ronald Reagan, wrote the following in the foreword to the 1999 book Marijuana RX: The Patients' Fight for Medicinal Pot, by Robert C. Randall and Alice M. O'Leary


There is compelling evidence that people are more than capable of making the distinction between the use of a drug for recreational and medical use [i] . The long term effects of using alcohol or nicotine recreationally have been demonstrated to be fatal; the same cannot be said for cannabis. Further this is about using the drug in a medical setting under the supervision of medical professionals.  As Opposition has conceded, this is something that already happens. As societies, we condone the use of far more powerful drugs on a daily basis. This is a clear example of a situation where politics is ignoring reality out of expediency. This is not a proposal for vending machines to sell crack but for the medicinal use of a drug with a proven track record.  [i] Gary Langer. “High Support for Medical Marijuana”. ABC News. 18 January 2010.


By expanding the legal use of the drug, it simply makes the illegal, recreational use easier as there’s a greater supply  If the drug were made available, it would need to be grown somewhere, stored somewhere and sold somewhere. Increased supervision of pharmacies and users would be required, in order to guard against the possibility that medical cannabis might be sold on for recreational purposes. Although other pharmaceuticals have narcotics effects, none has the marketability, or market share of cannabis. Many legal types of pharmaceuticals already form the basis of criminal empires and this move would exacerbate that.  Moreover, the increased visibility and mobility of cannabis within the economy will make it easier for determined criminals to hide or obscure the origins of cannabis produced illegally. Individual citizens will be less likely to consider cannabis use that they are victim to as being illegal. It will become harder and more expensive for the police to enforce restrictions on the use and production of cannabis for recreational purposes.  It has been well argued that “drugs are not a threat to society because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are a threat to society” [i] . Legalization in any form will be misconstrued and the health effects will be damaging [ii] . Even if side proposition can demonstrate that the health effects of cannabis are negligible, the risk of incentivizing increased production of cannabis in foreign territories and increased trade and transfer of cannabis at home is simply too high for the state to accept.  [i] Charles D. Mabry, MD, FACS, Pine Bluff, AR. “Physicians and the War on Drugs: The Case Against Legalization”. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons. October 2001.  [ii] Hillary Rodham Clinton, JD, US Secretary of State and US Senator (D-NY) at the time of the quote, stated the following during an Oct. 11, 2007 town hall meeting at Plymouth State College


By promoting the use of soft drugs in any context, encourages young people down a slippery slope toward harder drugs  Part of the attraction of cannabis, especially among younger users is its appeal as a ‘forbidden fruit’. Removing that would mean that other, harder drugs would be sought out to fulfill the same need to rebel.  A government sanction on a drug with a proven tendency to effect memory and other neurological functions would still hold open the door to other, more dangerous, drugs as a form of rebellion. In this regard the continued ban on cannabis – and the relative tolerance of the breach of that ban – sends out a clear message of ‘this far and no further’.  Any signal that this narcotic is acceptable simply increases the stakes.


In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use  At a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate.  Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’.  In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’.  The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself.  Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. .  Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.


Ultimately there is a clear difference between the medical use of a drug, the banning of which is both harming patients and is against the wishes of many societies and allowing a free-for-all. As a society we regulate the use of other products to ensure that they are not available to minors or open to abuse.  Clearly there would need to be regulations and, equally clearly, sometime those regulations would fail. However, that is true of all regulated product and the blanket ban isn’t producing terribly impressive results at the moment.  There is compelling evidence of the palliative effects of cannabis as well as popular support for its medicinal use; good policy should not be bound by a reactionary response to the simple mention of the word. There are side-effects to the use of almost any drug but they are relatively benign in this instance compared to many alternatives.


A refusal to purchase healthcare insurance can have an effect on interstate commerce, because in shrinking the risk pool of insured the premiums would incrementally rise. In 2007, healthcare expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 a person, and accounted for 16.2% of the gross domestic product. These statistics leave no doubt that regulating health insurance is synonymous with regulating interstate commerce.(10)  Not engaging in economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10)  The likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated; indeed, it is necessary for the health and welfare of the general population to provide treatment to individuals suffering from infectious diseases. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs.


The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause  Many attorneys general have fought constitutionality of mandates. Since the passage of the legislation in March of 2010, many state governments, governors, and attorney generals have pressed forward with lawsuits centred on the idea that the individual mandate in the legislation is unconstitutional.(7) Underlying these legal challenges is a debate about the basis of the national Congress’s lawmaking powers. In order for laws passed by Congress to be considered legitimate and enforceable, those laws must be based on a power conferred on congress by the Constitution. On those areas of law and public life where the Constitution is silent, legislative power rests not in the hands of Congress, but rather is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(9)  It has been argued that the individual healthcare mandate is authorised by the Constitution's empowerment of Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” (known as the “commerce clause”), however this is not true and the commerce clause does not authorize health insurance mandates. As the Congressional Research Service has written: "Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”(2) The most obvious reason for this is that an omission to buy health insurance can in no way be termed 'interstate commerce', as there is no activity or commerce going on. This is not in keeping with the commerce clause, unlike other previous federal healthcare laws.  There is no doubt that Congress can regulate an entire array of economic activities, large and small, inter- and intra-state. Thus, for example, there is no problem, Constitution-wise with having Congress regulate health care insurance purchase transactions. The problem with an individual insurance purchase mandate, however, is that it does not regulate any transactions at all; it regulates human beings, simply because they exist, and orders them to engage in certain types of economic transactions.(8)  While most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual citizen who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat, for example, (Wickard v. Filmore) or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).(6)  If Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behaviour that does not constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez, invalidating the application of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals, and United States v. Morrison, invalidating certain portions of the Violence Against Women Act.  In the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.(6) Therefore, it is clear that Congress is not empowered to regulate the choice not to buy healthcare, as it lacks constitutional authorisation to interfere in this aspect of individual Americans’ private lives.


The healthcare insurance can be unprecedented but still be constitutional as Erwin Chemerinsky argues: “Anything that has never been done before is literally unprecedented, which means it lacks any precedent. So the question is, will the Supreme Court want to authorize this new extension of congressional power in light of the fact that it violates the first principles it affirmed in Lopez and Morrison? Or, to the contrary, will it want to take the opportunity reaffirm that these principles still apply, notwithstanding Raich, in a case with no further implications beyond the statute in question?”(10)  Regarding the argument that the healthcare mandate will allow Congress to regulate everything and everyone, such hyperbole and apocalyptic predictions are familiar in this area. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by child labour. The Court concluded its opinion by declaring: "[I]f Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government practically destroyed." For more than 70 years Congress has prohibited child labour and none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Nor would allowing Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance mean that Congress could regulate who people invite to their homes for dinner or end our system of federalism.(10)


Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional  It is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy private insurance, and penalize them for not doing so (that is, penalizing their non-act, their omission to purchase insurance). As David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue: “… Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”(1)  The Congressional Budget Office believes “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”(2) An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it imposes a duty on individuals due to them being members of society. Second, it requires the purchase of a specific service on pain of tax penalties if that product is not purchased. (2)  As noted by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican: "Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it."(3) As Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute argue: “Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.”(4) The individual healthcare insurance mandate would, for the first time, mean the government setting uo a monopoly or a cartel with which every citizen of the US would be compelled- by a statutory power- to do business. This destroys any pretence of individual market freedom, individuals would be required to contribute money out of each and every pay check they earned to either a government entity which would be staffed and/or controlled by political appointees or to a cartel made up of companies that would owe their continued existence on the cartel list to the acquiescence of political overseers. Either way, the reduction in individual autonomy and freedom over health care choices would be dramatically decreased and inevitably politicized. This has obvious worrying possibilities for corruption, the party in power would favour those who donate to the party.(5)  Enforcing the mandate may also intrude on Constitutional rights. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, “[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws [people who flout the law] will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”(6)This is likely to mean much more intrusive inspection, for example hospitals having to report to the government patients they have who don’t have health insursnce..(6) This is why a majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and several courts have already struck it down on constitutional grounds.(7)  For all these reasons it is clear that for Congress to try to penalize a non-act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, and so the individual mandate is unconstitutional.


The federal government mandates positive activities all the time, and this is why several courts have also upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.(7)  Regarding the charge that the individual mandate penalizes a 'non-action', Stephanie Cutter, an adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued: "Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us—when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab."(7) Thus these people are not engaging in a 'non-action' but rather in an economic choice which has negative implications for other Americans, something Congress has the constitutional power to regulate under the commerce clause and the constitution's provision that Congress should promote the general welfare.


The individual mandate gives too much power to the Federal Government  The vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general powers (including the right to operate their own police forces), is a key part of America's constitutional architecture. Far from being an 18th century affectation, these structural limitations on government powers were designed to protect individual liberty. In the Framers' view, limiting the ability of the federal government to exercise authority was core to ensuring that no single government entity would grow too powerful. This is because, under the Supremacy Clause, any constitutionally compliant federal legislation trumps exercises of individual state’s powers. Therefore, an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause (which would be produced if the mandating of healthcare were to be allowed) would rob States of any remaining authority.(8)  When any choice or non-action which has economic impacts becomes termed as “economic”, every aspect of consumer behaviour, or, for that matter, any aspect of individual behaviour, would become an economic activity, and thus nothing would fall outside of Congress' power to regulate under the commerce clause.(8)  The individual health insurance mandate would set dangerous precedents for federal power. The Congressional Budget Office acknowledged the unprecedented nature of an individual mandate when assessing the Clinton health care reform proposal of 1993: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate has two features that, in combination, make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would have to be heavily regulated by the federal government."(2)  The 'commerce clause on steroids', as imagined by supporters of the healthcare mandate, would fundamentally warp America's constitutional architecture. Because every single decision by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, cars, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy, it could be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to dictate how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes, transforming Americans into virtual serfs.(8) For all these reasons the individual healthcare mandate would give too much power to the federal government, in ways which are antithetical to the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it and set it out (with restricted and separate powers), and so it should be deemed unconstitutional.


Mandatory health insurance is not analogous to car insurance. Car insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.  States do not require non-drivers, including passengers in cars with potentially bad drivers, to buy auto insurance liability policies -- even though such a requirement undoubtedly would lower the auto insurance premiums for those who do drive. The auto insurance requirement is linked to driving and to the possibility that bad driving may cause injuries to others, including passengers in the driver's car, not to those who benefit from roads generally.(2) The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself. And the auto insurance mandate is a quid pro quo for having the state issuing a privilege: in this case a driver’s license.(6)  Regarding the claim that Medicare tax provides a justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate, it is worth noting that the architects of Medicare harboured grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States government. However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits, although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out”, other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.(6)


Insurance mandates are not a tax and therefore are outside of constitutional powers. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor, claims that health insurance mandates are not a tax, and therefore falls outside congressional power. “You're fining people for failing to enter a private insurance contract.”(3)  Moreover, as Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith argue: “the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the 'taking' of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a per-cent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.”(6)  Regarding the “general welfare” arguments adduced by side opposition: The words 'general Welfare' show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'. Significantly, Notice the Constitution does not say the 'general welfare of the citizens of the United States.' It says "general Welfare of the United States.' This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project, including health care.(13)


The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause  Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.  Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. Where a Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that ”strong” and potentially more intrusive forms of action are less supported than weaker ones.(11)  Critics of an individual mandate cite recent Supreme Court cases in which the Court has limited the commerce clause’s power. However, those cases (Lopez and Morrison) involved regulation of non-economic activity. The individual mandate regulates the relationship between sellers and buyers of health care insurance. Moreover, the Court was concerned in Lopez and Morrison with efforts by Congress to intrude into areas that are properly regulated by state governments and thereby to upset the balance of power between the federal and state governments. By contrast, congressional regulation of the health care industry does not violate state prerogatives.  To be sure, much regulation of insurance occurs at the state level, but that is because Congress has chosen by statute to defer to state regulation. The Constitution does not prevent Congress from revoking its statutory grants to state governments.(12) Those who argue that this is unconstitutional maintain that those not purchasing health insurance, by definition, are not part of interstate commerce. There are numerous flaws with this argument.  First, Congress can regulate activities that themselves are not part of interstate commerce if they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate wheat that farmers grew for their own home consumption. More recently in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court ruled that Congress could prohibit cultivating and possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal medicinal use. Even though the individuals were not personally engaged in commerce, the matter still fit within the commerce power.(10)  Second, the decision to abstain from particular economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10) This is made more significant by the fact that the decision to remain uninsured can affect commerce- both within and between states- by raising health insurance premiums. This is because insurance premiums tend to rise in response to reductions in the size of the pool of individuals to whom financial risk can be distributed.(14)  Citizens who forego health insurance are forcing other Americans to cover their costs if they are sent to hospital for emergency treatment. They are also forcing others to pay higher insurance rates, now that insurance companies can no longer legally exclude those with pre-existing conditions.(15)  Third, the likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs. In other words, the health care system is part of interstate commerce. Providing care for all unquestionably has a substantial economic effect. Congress, then, can use its authority under the necessary and proper clause to make sure that the system that it is creating is viable and capable of providing health care for all.(10)  Therefore the individual healthcare mandate is constitutional because it is authorized under the commerce clause of the constitution.


Mandatory health insurance is analogous to constitutional mandates  Federal mandates are a cornerstone of the American legal system and the everyday life of every American. As Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Iowa's attorney general Tom Miller, argued in 2010: "We live under mandates every day. Without them, society as we know it would disintegrate. Every criminal law tells us what we cannot do. And sometimes the law tells us what we must do. Congress can require young Americans to register for the draft to serve in the military, for example, or can require us all to pay taxes for programs like Social Security and Medicare. We can- and do- argue about what shape these laws should take, without claiming that our leaders are constitutionally barred from dealing with our most pressing problems."(16)  Car insurance is mandatory, so why not health insurance too? If the government requires that individuals buy car insurance, why should it not also be allowed to require that individuals buy health insurance? Some say that there is no mandate to buy car insurance because if you don't want to buy that car insurance, you simply don't have to drive. Yet, for the majority of families and workers, driving is a necessity and not a choice. So, the mandate on drivers to buy insurance is, therefore, directly analogous to a mandate on individuals to buy health insurance.  Medicare tax also sets an important justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance for one's senior years. Similarly, Congress can use a payroll tax to implement a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance before they reach age 65. Under the House bill, for example, people will pay a 2.5 percent tax on their income unless they have health care coverage.(12)  It is significant here that there is no fundamental right to go without insurance under the Constitution; no core constitutional rights are violated by the individual mandate. Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive, alongside treatment that they might not be able to consent to (by reason of infirmity), but that doctors and hospitals may be ethically obliged to provide.  The “liberties” that are modified by the individual mandate are purely economic and have none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that are normally used to invoke Constitutional protection.  In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.(11) This means that the healthcare mandate is no different to the many other mandates the federal government imposes on the American people to support the general welfare, and as such should be upheld as constitutional.


The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers  An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid 'regulation,' it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty.  The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a 'head tax' or 'poll tax' (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws.  Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behaviour, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional. (11) In many ways, the 'mandate' could be considered a tax, but a tax which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax”, a tax on transactions or events, or a “penalty tax”, a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.(17)  Health insurance mandates incentivize behaviour like many other laws. At one time, the Supreme Court restricted the ability of Congress to use its taxing power to regulate people's activities. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Court drew a distinction between taxes designed to raise revenue, which were permissible, and taxes designed to regulate behaviour, which might not be permissible. However, this distinction was jettisoned by 1937, and the taxing power is now recognized as a broad congressional power.(12) Moreover, Congress has the power to make laws which promote the general welfare. As Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued in November of 2009: “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”(12)  The power to promote the general welfare becomes crucial when it is considered that it is impossible to create a national health insurance system and help the current 30 million uninsured is to mandate everyone to buy health insurance. You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007. If citizens within a state are not obliged to participate in a healthcare scheme (whether privately of publicly organised), then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. Such behaviour will alter the composition of the risk pool, such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of "adverse selection". Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known- somewhat histrionically- as an “insurance death spiral”.  States that wish to pursue the goal of creating an affordable, universally available system of healthcare, must ensure that the majority of their citizens buy into such a scheme.(13) Because there is a compelling benefit to the "general welfare" in instituting a national welfare program, the federal government may rely on Constitutional authority to impose a health insurance mandate. If the States were left to do this, with some instituting a mandate and some not, many would be left uninsured and the risk pool would not be adequately spread. The difference in benefits to the country clearly justifies federal action to create this individual mandate under the Constitution.


These arguments overlook the existence of two major cases – United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison – in which the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that Congress can regulate non-commercial behaviour merely because, arguably, such behaviour can have an impact on Commerce. The Court's overarching reason for doing so was its compellingly articulated belief that the Commerce Clause is a limited grant of power and one that cannot be infinitely capacious. This reasoning is unassailable, and demonstrated that the individual mandate is not a reasonable application of the commerce clause.(8) Rather, this interpretation of the commerce clause could potentially America's constitutional structure. Every single decision made by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, a car, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy. Such decisions could therefore be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to determine how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes.  Meanwhile, the Supremacy Clause- which ensures that any constitutional federal legislation trumps exercises of state power- would all but guarantee that an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause would rob States of any remaining authority. This point was ably articulated by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in Lopez.(8) Accordingly, there is a great deal at stake here. No matter how important the cause of health care reform might be, it is not consequential enough to destroy the very sinews of America’s constitutional system.


It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.  The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.


There is no distinction between "natural" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement  The natural/unnatural distinction is untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc. to enhance their performance. There is nothing ‘natural’ about taking vitamin pills, wearing whole-body Lycra suits, having surgery on ligaments, spending every day in a gym pumping weights or running in shoes with spikes on the bottom. Diet, medicine, technology, and even just coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. Since there is no clear way to distinguish from legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed. So taking these drugs is no more unnatural than what happens today.  A practical example of an unnatural aid is the Speedo worn in 2008 at the Beijing Olympics. FINA, the world governing body of swimming was concerned about the extraordinary statistics in Beijing where swimmers wearing the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit won 90 per cent of all available medals and broke 23 world records. Since Speedo launched the suit in 2008, 108 world records have fallen (until February 2009) (1).  Simon Hart, Swimwear giant Speedo hit back at 'unfair advantage' claims, 02/19/2009,   ,accessed 15/05/2011


Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.


Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing  Freedom of choice: If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information.  Even if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of tobacco, alcohol and boxing, which remain legal. We allow world class athletes to train for 23 hours a week (on average), adjust their diets and endanger themselves by pushing the boundaries of their body. We let them do it, because it is what they chose which is best for them. According to the NFL Player Association the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years of age (1). Thus already we allow athletes to endanger their lives, give them the choice of a lifestyle. Why not also extend this moral precedent to drugs?  Judd Bissiotto, 15 Surprising facts about world athletes,   , accessed 05/18/2011


Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.  An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.


There will always be a black market for cheaper or for new untested drugs that will give an athlete an edge before others have a chance to try it. Legalization is therefore unlikely to result in large health benefits as the competitiveness of sport will always result in athletes being willing to take a risk.


Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport  The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years.  The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.  Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive  for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008,  , accessed 05/20/2011


Improving safety standards in sport  It does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require "lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, "some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year."(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.  Steven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004,  , accessed 05/19/2011


Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.  In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).  All about Traumatic Brain Injuries:  , accessed 05/15/2011


Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators.  Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?  The criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.


Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use  Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)  Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008,  accessed 05/15/2011


Protecting young and vulnerable athletes  Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.


Protecting the health of athletes  Laws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.  The use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.  Thus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users.  Equality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.  BBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize):  , accessed 05/15/2011


Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport  The show and the celebration of human physical achievement is what makes sport enjoyable to the public. The reason people enjoy sport is because it is a demonstration of what other fellow human beings can achieve and what humans can achieve collectively, as a species.  A spectacle is designed to amaze. It doesn’t need to be human achievement to be amazing (no one would call monster truck driving a sport). So, when humans start taking drugs to improve performance, it is no longer a sport, it is a spectacle, because there is no human physical achievement, but instead a chemical achievement.  It also becomes a celebration not of human physical achievement, but of human intellectual achievement, of who can design the best drugs. Even with fancy running shoes, we are still celebrating human achievement, which will not happen once you take it to the extreme of allowing drug use.  This doesn’t benefit athletes in the long run. Athletes won’t be celebrated but scientists will!


The temptation of youth to try illegal substances is not just a problem in sports. In all environments you will have age restrictions.  To say that we should uphold the ban for the sake of children is as if we would advocate a ban of alcohol for everyone, because some teenagers like to socialize with adults who are legally able to drink alcohol. There is always going to be an age restriction and it is the duty of institutions, trainers and athletes to uphold it, so that later in life as adults, athletes can make an informed decision.


There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself. If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.


The proposition is wrong in assuming that increased media coverage will have the drastic effects it claims on changing public perceptions towards women’s sport. The problem with lack of interest in women’s sport is not caused by a lack of media coverage. It is because of deep-rooted social conceptions of gender roles and sport (as the prop have acknowledged). Sports like figure-skating and gymnastics have traditionally been viewed as female-appropriate whereas high-contact sports like football, rugby, American football or basketball are generally seen as male-appropriate. [1]  Crucially, the proposition are wrong in claiming that such social perceptions are easily changed. Simply providing more media coverage will not have the proposition’s desired effects. In the United States increased participation by women in sport has not lead to changes in perceptions so it seems unlikely media coverage will.[2] This is what was observed when the newly formed Women’s Soccer Association (WSA) in the United States which signed a lucrative TV-rights agreement in 1999. This proved to be overly ambitious for the WSA which, despite having a huge amount of air-time, failed to generate interest and viewer ratings were very low. Subsequently, the WSA collapsed in 2003 setting women’s professional soccer in the USA back immensely. [3]  This is evidence that media coverage cannot change public perceptions in the way the proposition wants. Instead, increased funding to development programs for women’s sport and, more importantly, time are what is needed. Over the last decades, women’s sport has moved on from female-appropriate sports only, to sports like tennis, athletics and swimming that are now largely seen as gender-neutral. This is clear evidence that women’s sport is heading in the right direction despite the fact that media coverage is low. It time, contact sports traditionally viewed as male-appropriate will also become normalised for women.  [1] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.  [2] Hardin, Marie, and Greer, Jennifer D., ‘The Influence of Gender-role Socialization, Media Use and Sports Participation on Perceptions of Gender-Appropriate Sports’, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol.32 No.2.  [3] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.


Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.  The male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport.  Humans are social beings with esteem needs, and as social beings we like to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. This is best achieved on a general level by conforming to social expectations and norm. This also applies for societal conceptions of gender. The fact that the media deems women’s sport to be of lesser importance which (as we have seen) conveys to the public this message, reinforces the notion that sport is not a worthwhile activity for women and girls. Instead, it is an activity more appropriate for men and boys. This kind of discourse has the effect of moulding gender identities both in terms of how men perceive women and how women perceive themselves. In this way, the lack of media coverage of women’s sport fuels a self-affirming perception of gender which effectively denies many young girls a realistic choice of becoming engaged in sport as perceptions affect confidence in one’s ability; as a result of this gender bias boys as young as six rate themselves as being much more competent in sports than girls do.[1]  By forcing the media to provide equal coverage of both men’s and women’s sport, we take an effective step in breaking these societal discourses and transforming gender perceptions. This is because increased coverage will make sport seem like a worthwhile activity for girls and women. As more women take part in sport, this has a further cyclical effect of re-affirming gender conceptions around sport which, in turn, induces further women to become engaged in sport. This is a desirable outcome from the government’s perspective because sport has a positive impact on the health of those who are physically active. Those who are physically active are not only less likely to suffer from things like Coronary Heart Disease and cancer, but they have also been shown to lead more psychologically happy lives due to the endorphins released while exercising, and the joy of feeling physically fit.  [1] Jacobs, Janis E., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S., ‘The Impact of Mopthers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1992, pp.932-944, p.934.


The proposition themselves have mentioned three examples of female athletes that are excellent role models for young girls. The huge publicity received by female athletes at the Olympic Games alone, but also at Tennis Grand Slams indicates that there are already sufficient sporting role models for girls to admire. Of course more would be better but this should not come about through mandatory extra coverage.  If the proposition’s concern lies in the lack of female role models in traditionally masculine sports like football, then the proposition are still going about this the wrong way. You cannot simply artificially create role models. Sporting heroes may be glorified by the media, but they are not made by them. For a sporting hero to be glorified, the athlete needs to prove himself or herself as exceptional in his or her field and distinguish him or herself. When relatively unknown athletes and sports teams do distinguish themselves, they receive due credit and glorification in the media. Examples include the victory of the USA Women’s soccer team winning the world cup in 1999, and Ireland’s remarkably successful campaign in the 2007 cricket world cup. Both were relatively minor sports with low fan bases and did receive media coverage for their achievements. This indicates that the status quo is sufficient for providing role models even in more niche sports. The proposition may complain that the media attention in such situations is always short-lived, but this is only natural. As we saw with the example of women’s soccer in the USA, media coverage where demand remains limited is unsustainable.


The sports world is unfairly dominated by a male-orientated world-view.  Sport is dominated by a male-orientated world view. This is the case in two respects:  In terms of the way sports media is run. Sports media are almost entirely run by men, who somewhat inevitably are more interested in men’s sport.[1] In the news media for example only 27% of top management jobs were held by women.[2] In addition, women who enter the world of sports media are subjected to those male-orientated perceptions. For them to succeed as journalists they feel a need to cover men’s sport. [3] These two factors explain why the gap between media coverage of men’s and women’s sport is not closing despite the increase in participation and interest in women’s sport.  The media dictates what is “newsworthy”. Public opinion is hugely influenced by the media. Stories, events or sports that receive a large amount of coverage give the impression to the public that they are important issues that are worthy of being reported on. Similarly, sports that are not covered appear to the public as being of lesser importance. This applies in the case of women’s sport which in the male-dominated world of sport media will always be perceived as of lesser importance.  This male dominated world-view is unfair on female athletes. Sport is supposed to be a celebration of the human mind and body, and it is right that athletes that push themselves to the brink in search for glory receive due praise. The hugely skewed coverage of sport against women’s sports caused by the male world-view in the media is hugely unfair on female athletes, as they do not get the deserved recognition their male counterparts receive.  [1] Turner, Georgina, “Fair play for women’s sport”, The Guardian, 24 January 2009.  [2] ‘Global Report: Men Occupy Majority of Management Jobs in News Companies’, International Women’s Media Foundation.  [3] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.


The skew in media coverage is not down to personal preferences of sports journalists. If journalists simply reported on what interested them, media companies would not be very successful. Instead, they focus on reporting on sporting events that are more popular and are likely to attract more public attention. The large amount of media coverage of women’s sport in the Olympic Games and Tennis Grand Slams is testimony to this point. It shows that sports journalists are not all subconsciously sexist as the proposition might suggest, they simply cover what they deem to be appropriate and of interest to the public. The Olympics and Wimbledon are sufficiently high-profile to warrant high coverage of the women’s events. The national women’s football league in the UK, however, does not.  Moreover, media coverage is not a matter of fairness as the proposition suggest. It is to do with popularity. If fairness was the main priority, then media would have to cover all stories no-matter what their significance to the general public, to the same level. This would simply be pointless and impractical.


The unpopularity of the events sports media would be forced to cover would mean less money, not more money going into sports. This is because incentives for lucrative TV rights deals, sponsorships and advertising only exist where there is a high expectation of positive returns for the advertisers and media companies. For example, if Sky Sports feel there is not much scope in broadcasting every single women’s football league match in the UK, it is unlikely to make a particularly lucrative offer. If anything it will detract from valuable air-time that could be used to show other more popular events that are seen as more profitable.  Moreover, it is not true that media coverage is necessary to incite government funding. For example, the British Government offered for the huge amount of funding for relatively unknown sports for the Beijing and London Olympics, not because they are popular [1], but because the government independently believed it was a worthwhile investment. The fact that such government schemes have succeeded in attracting young girls despite of the lack of media coverage is indicative of this.  [1] BBC News: “Funding for Britain’s Olympic sports extended to Rio 2016”, BBC News, 12 August, 2012.