brentborloo-blog

[brentborloo-blog]

First of all, thank you for addressing this topic. I have always been angered by the hypocrisy surrounding this subject. The fact that our government is wilfully ignoring the scientific evidence of the benefits of soft drugs seems like a lazy approach to resolving this issue. One thought I had about this is that big beer companies are lobbying to postpone or even stop a clear legislation for legal cannabis, out of fear for profit loss. I would like to know your thoughts on this statement.

While I agree there should be legislation for legal cannabis, I think we should go even further. In addition to legal soft drugs, I say let’s legalise all drugs. Now don’t get me wrong. I am clearly not saying that we should carelessly make all hard drugs available for anyone. But in my humble opinion I believe regulation could lead to consumers actually knowing what they are consuming. By keeping the drugs out of the criminal circuit, cutting and mixing of the drugs with dangerous substances will be eliminated. Prior physical and psychological tests can provide a ‘license to use’ for people who would like to experiment. It also seems much safer to have a decent follow-up for drug users. With a prescription based system, doctors/psychologists would be notified when a patient has bought drugs. This way excessive substance use can quickly be tracked down and remedied. Criminal circuits will be weakened by a good regulation of substances, this also means more revenues for the government.

People who want to use drugs will eventually find a way to get their hands on the substance so I believe it is better to have a safe ‘monitored’ way to use. I have no background in law whatsoever so maybe this reply is a bit blunt, but I would really like to know your opinion.

Belgium and it’s archaic cannabis policy

I am proud to be Belgian. Not only because of the fries and chocolate, but because we have always been pioneers. The basis of the EU, the second country on earth to legalize gay marriage, the country that fought for euthanasia. Yet this time Belgium disappoints me. We are no longer among the first. Worse still, where most countries are taking steps forward, we take steps backwards.

Allow me to explain.

In recent years the positive effects of cannabis on our physical and mental health have been proven. Due to this we have seen a trend of decriminalization in many countries. The positive effects of this decriminalization in itself have also been proven. This is in sharp contrast to what is currently happening in Belgium. A 2015 circular (COL 15/2015) even tightened the policy by making seizing of cannabis for personal use mandatory again, even though the possession of maximum 3 grams for this purpose is legal. In addition to that, studies have shown that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful to health and yet these substances are legal. It therefore seems appropriate to treat cannabis in a similar way, at the least.

Why is Belgium lagging? The answer to this question can be found in our legislation, which dates to 1921. Since then there have been alterations and updates of the corresponding Royal Decrees and Ministerial Circulars. It is in fact this amalgam of sources that causes uncertainty and ambiguity. Because our drug policy is spread across so many sources it is hard to amend.

As a law student I know that the legislative process is complex and that it takes into consideration different insights. Furthermore, these negotiations are long and arduous, and it often seems easier to reach a compromise based on old legislation. This, however, should not be an excuse. A tabula rasa is required. There is a need for a separate cannabis policy disconnected from the current “general” archaic drug law that considers the recent social trend and scientific evidence. This legislation must be uniform and clear.

I refuse to accept that Belgium lags on a matter such as this, of which the benefits have been proven and the direct impact on the population is real, simply because it is “too hard”. This population does not benefit from regulations that only contain references to other regulations. This population needs clarity. This population needs innovation.

[brentborloo-blog]

How we can build a moon base today

If wanting to leave this planet has always been your dream, then you might be in luck.

By 2024 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans on establishing an outpost on the moon. Unlike the previous lunar missions, the astronauts who will participate in this expedition will likely stay there indefinitely. The Artemis mission (Artemis was the twin sister of Apollo and goddess of the Moon in Greek mythology) will also deliver the first woman on the moon.

But why should we go back to the moon?

Building a lunar base can benefit our life on earth in multiple ways. First of all the achievement of building such a complex structure out of the comfort of our planet will be an inspiration for generations to come, not only for young aspiring scientists and engineers, but also for the political leaders of the future. By making this an international effort, this mission will be an example of what humanity is capable of when working together on a common goal.

Artist’s interpretation of a lunar outpost

Secondly, the outpost will serve as a hub for future travels to Mars and other planets. Making humanity independent from Earth is essential for the survival of our species in the future. The Moon has less gravity to overcome and no atmosphere. This means that larger loads can be transported into our Milky Way with less fuel compared to Earth.

Finally, it would create a vast array of new technologies that would also benefit the people on Earth.

How would we do it then?

Today we have the technology to establish a moon base. At first this base will still be reliant on Earth for basic resources. The moon is a very hostile place to live. The people who will be living there will need constant air supply, a steady source of water and protection from cosmic radiation. Since the Apollo program, satellites have been mapping the moon and lunar rovers have analysed the composition of the soil. With all this information in mind, we basically know everything we need to know to establish a first outpost. The first crew of astronauts will consist of scientists and engineers who will try to develop ways of using the available lunar material. Lunar dust could be used for building materials and purifying the lunar ice could produce water for human consumption. Water is critical, not only for drinking, but also for experiments with growing plants for food. Electricity can be stored in hydrogen fuel cells and water can also be split into hydrogen and oxygen, used for rocket fuel. 

Recent estimates from NASA and the private sector suggest that a moon base can be build for 20 to 40 billion dollars, spread over ten years. This is about the cost of the International Space Station. It is a big investment, but just imagine what the payoff could be. Over time the moon outpost will expand in a colony which is self-reliant for the most part. This means a whole new space economy will emerge built on mining, tourism and scientific research. The Moon will not only be a place for scientists and engineers, but also for merchants and entrepreneurs.

NASA could definetely fly me to the moon, how about you?

SOURCES:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtQkz0aRDe8

https://www.csis.org/analysis/costs-international-lunar-base

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/moon2mars/#top

https://www.space.com/30008-moon-colony-cost-commercial-space-report.html

https://www.businessinsider.nl/nasa-estimates-20-billion-30-billion-cost-people-moon-2024-2019-6?international=true&r=US

https://www.businessinsider.nl/nasa-artemis-moon-base-apollo-space-rocket-sls-2019-9?international=true&r=US