Greece heads to the polls

A hair's-breadth victory for the right is predicted, but time will tell.

The Greek polls have opened, and will stay open until around 4pm British time, with the first exit polls being released around 6:30. Although opinion polling isn't allowed in the country in the two weeks leading up to the election, various organisations have been conducting their own private polls, many of which reportedly point to the conservative New Democrats winning by a hair's breadth.

There are still a number of undecideds in the Greek electorate, however, and analysis has been devoted to trying to determine what is likely to swing them. Some jokingly suggest that the results of Saturday's football match against Russia (which Greece won in a surprise 1-0 result) may lead to the Greeks feeling more emboldened to elect a candidate who will stand up to Europe; others that it may make them feel better about the whole situation and just want to play along.

Something which may have a real effect on the polls was suggested by Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal: taxes. Owing to the backwards nature of the Greek tax system (which still involves paying much of the bills in person with cash), the caretaker government hasn't levied any taxes in the run-up to the election. But they are widely expected to be raised in the next couple of days, which means many Greeks are heading to their accountants:

Okay, so in the past several days people have begun preparing their post-election taxes, and they've been hit with sticker shock. The new austerity reforms have seen some major increases in tax bills for the average Greek... sometimes to the tune of 300-400 per cent, according to one person familiar with the intricacies of it all.

This has got people particularly angry, and it could be this trend which causes people at the last second to turn away from [the leader of the New Democrats, Antonis] Samaras with disgust, and vote for [the leader of the SYRIZA, Alexis] Tsipras.

Many in the European establishment see the election of Tsipras as the worst case scenario for Greece, fearing that it will lead him and Angela Merkel to enter into a game of chicken which will result in Greece being ejected from the euro. But the Financial Times is reporting that one even worse outcome may be about to occur; a hung parliament:

Private opinion polls showed that none of the parties would win a parliamentary majority. The centre-right New Democracy party had a three-point lead over the radical left Syriza coalition, but neither party would capture even 30 per cent of the vote, according to two private polls seen by the FT. . .

A delay in forming a coalition, or in the worst case, a recourse to a third election if negotiations fail, could cause Greek public finances to collapse. Officials at the finance ministry said last week that unless a delayed €1bn tranche of EU-IMF funding is paid, funds to pay pensions and public sector wages would be exhausted by July 20.

The World Bank's outgoing head, Rober Zoellick, has told the Observer that Europe is one step away from a "Lehmans moment", but much of his criticism was focused on the deleterious effects of uncertainty in Europe on developing nations. That uncertainty will either be cleared up, or magnified greatly, by events today.

Polling slips for the two main parties, SYRIZA and New Democracy, in a polling station in Athens. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

The government has admitted it can curb drugs without criminalising users

Under the Psychoactive Substances Act it will not be a criminal offence for someone to possess for their own consumption recreational drugs too dangerous to be legally sold to the public.

From Thursday, it may be illegal for churches to use incense. They should be safe from prosecution though, because, as the policing minister was forced to clarify, the mind-altering effects of holy smells aren’t the intended target of the Psychoactive Substances Act, which comes into force this week.

Incense-wafters aren’t the only ones wondering whether they will be criminalised by the Act. Its loose definition of psychoactive substances has been ridiculed for apparently banning, among other things, flowers, perfume and vaping.

Anyone writing about drugs can save time by creating a shortcut to insert the words “the government has ignored its advisors” and this Act was no exception. The advisory council repeatedly warned the government that its definition would both ban things that it didn’t mean to prohibit and could, at the same time, be unenforcable. You can guess how much difference these interventions made.

But, bad though the definition is – not a small problem when the entire law rests on it – the Act is actually much better than is usually admitted.

Under the law, it will not be a criminal offence for someone to possess, for their own consumption, recreational drugs that are considered too dangerous to be legally sold to the public.

That sounds like a mess, and it is. But it’s a mess that many reformers have long advocated for other drugs. Portugal decriminalised drug possession in 2001 while keeping supply illegal, and its approach is well-regarded by reformers, including the Liberal Democrats, who pledged to adopt this model in their last manifesto.

This fudge is the best option out of what was politically possible for dealing with what, until this week, were called legal highs.

Before the Act, high-street shops were free to display new drugs in their windows. With 335 head shops in the UK, the drugs were visible in everyday places – giving the impression that they couldn’t be that dangerous. As far as the data can be trusted, it’s likely that dozens of people are now dying each year after taking the drugs.

Since legal highs were being openly sold and people were thought to be dying from them, it was obvious that the government would have to act. Until it did, every death would be blamed on its inaction, even if the death rate for users of some newly banned drugs may be lower than it is for those who take part in still-legal activities like football. The only question was what the government would do.

The most exciting option would have been for it to incentivise manufacturers to come up with mind-altering drugs that are safe to take. New Zealand is allowing drug makers to run trials of psychoactive drugs, which could eventually – if proved safe enough – be sold legally. One day, this might change the world of drug-taking, but this kind of excitement was never going to appeal to Theresa May’s Home Office.

What was far more plausible was that the government would decide to treat new drugs like old ones. Just as anyone caught with cocaine or ecstasy faces a criminal record, so users of new drugs could have been hit with the same. This was how legal highs have been treated up until now when one was considered serious enough to require a ban.

But instead, the government has recognised that its aim – getting new drugs out of high-street shop windows so they don’t seem so normal – didn’t depend on criminalising users. A similar law in Ireland achieved precisely this. To its credit, the government realised it would be disproportionate to make it a criminal offence to possess the now-illegal highs.

The reality of the law will look chaotic. Users will still be able to buy new drugs online – which could open them to prosecution for import – and the law will do nothing to make drugs any safer. Some users might now be exposed to dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous other drugs. There will be few prosecutions and some head shop owners might try to pick holes in the law: the government seems to have recognised that it needed a better definition to have any chance of making the law stick.

But, most importantly for those of us who think the UK’s drug laws should be better at reducing the damage drugs cause, the government, for the first time, has decided that a class of recreational drugs are too dangerous to be sold but that it shouldn’t be a crime to possess them. The pressure on the government to act on legal highs has been relieved, without ordinary users being criminalised. For all the problems with the new law, it’s a step in the right direction.

Leo Barasi is a former Head of Communications at the UK Drug Policy Commission. He writes in a personal capacity