BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prevent drug use

There is a clear and present problem with drug use among children and teenagers in many countries. According to the UK Department of Health, in 2002-2003 38% of 15 year olds had used illegal drugs, as had 8% of 11 year olds[1]. The fact that all of these children would have been in schools at the age of 15 shows that current policies of targeting the supply train of drugs (for example by arresting drug dealers and intercepting drug shipments) is failing to protect children. Therefore a more direct approach that intervenes at the point of consumption is needed, most crucially for children and teenagers, as their years in education are crucial for both their personal development and their realization of their future education and employment potential. Drug use at a young age may lead to lifelong use and addiction. Random drug testing in schools will allow for vulnerable children's drug problems to be discovered, and assist the state in getting them the help they need to get off drugs. Random testing is especially valuable in this scenario because many infant and teenage drug users will try to disguise their drug use from parents and teachers and so avoid detection through avoiding suspicion, a tactic which will prove of no use against random drug tests which will likely affect all students at one point or another. It should also deter many students from starting taking drugs in the first place as the prospect of them being caught becomes far more likely, as they know disguising their drug use will be of no use. [1] Department of Health. “Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 2003”. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Statistics/Statistical...
School's duty of care

Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers.[1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'. It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not. Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use. [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007
No harm to non-drug users

Random drug tests will pose no harm to students who do not use illegal drugs, as they have nothing to fear from this fact being certified. If anything it serves as a vindication of their law-abidance and good character. Random drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used which are unlikely to make a 'positive' reading from secondary exposure (for example, being near someone else smoking cannabis). Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need their right to 'privacy', as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impact upon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, non-drug users have nothing to fear from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.
Right to privacy

Even if a right to privacy (which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for suspicion) does not exist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being violated. Because they would perceive this violation as a harm, it should not be imposed without good reason. This problematizes the nature of 'random' testing, which by definition means forcing drug tests on individuals on whom there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use. Firstly, the majority of those being tested will most likely test negative (as the previously cited statistics suggest) and so a majority will be harmed for no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the crimes of others. This may be seen as the equivalent of searching all homes in a neighbourhood for an illegal weapon on the suspicion that one of them was hiding it -an action which would be illegal in almost every western liberal democracy. Further, however, even if students do engage in illegal drug use, random drug tests will additionally catch only those on whom there was previously no suspicion against (as students who show signs of drug use are already usually tested). In order to not already be under suspicion, these drug-using students would have to be engaging in their education, not disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they are not actively harming others, these students should be subject only to the same standards as individuals in other areas of society: to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.
Keeping teenagers in education

Studies in Michigan in the USA have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use among their pupils.[1] It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. What such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of exclusions and disciplinary actions resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee of lowering drug use overall. Faced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an adolescent desire to rebel and reject authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow themselves to continue doing what they want more easily – that is, taking drugs. Leaving school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drug-using lifestyle is almost certainly more harmful than the worst-case alternative, whereby they at least remain in education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future career and education choices. Simply driving teenagers out of education with random drug tests benefits no-one. [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/03/blowing_smoke.html
This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.

Parents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far[1].     [1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html
The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.

Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal[1].   [1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011. http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2330057/
Such bans are easy to side step.

The San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price[1]. Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use.   [1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_out...
Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.

It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life.
Obesity is a public health issue .

Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.
Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.

Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand[1].   [1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University.  November 2010. http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.pdf
Making it easier for parents to raise their children well.

As well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids[1]. This can create enough ‘pester power’[2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best.   [1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010. http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-09-the-fast-food-industrys-4.2... [2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.”  Huffington Post. November 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/san-francisco-happy-meal-ban_n_...
Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.

Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food[1]. This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults.   [1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/mcdonalds-happy-meal-to-get-h...
Obesity is a public health issue .

All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.   [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm
Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles

Even the leaders of those European political parties that still call themselves socialist tend to avoid the word. Broadly speaking even the leaders of the left- outside Cuba and Colombia- accept the basic principles of Market economics and recognise that high-tax, high-spend economics simply does not work. Like it or not borders are now open and the idea that the state can control the flow of capital is a thing of the past. As a result people generally are richer and the idea that there a solid class block is simply no longer relevant to their lives.
Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways

It should perhaps come as no surprise that the days of standing outside shopping centres and train stations handing out soggy newspapers have passed into the annals of political history – although some still do it. Equally, trades union are no longer seen as being as central to European Socialism as they once were. However, the militancy seen over the last few years suggest, if anything, that what was a diversified ‘anti-capitalist’ movement is now coalescing around a rather clearer set of goals of which the basics of the anti-capitalism movement are merely a part. In the light of the globalisation of Capitalism, the left is increasingly rediscovering its internationalist roots which were lost to a great extent in the seventies and eighties in national struggles to save industries and jobs.
The idea that wealth should be more fairly and evenly distributed has never had so many supporters and the failure to do so has rarely been more keenly felt

In the model of Blair and Clinton, it didn’t matter if the rich got a lot richer, as long as the poor got a bit richer. That model has now been shown not to work and the rather timid new leaders of the left are starting to return to concepts of fairness and equality rather than the rather bland concepts of ‘opportunity’ and ‘choice’. Europe is increasingly governed by unelected technocrats who seem to think that the opinions of a handful of international bankers are somehow more important than the jobs and livelihoods of millions. This may always have been the case but it tends not to show during times of plenty. Now these latent inequalities are becoming apparent and people are angry. It is perhaps one of the great ironies of history that one of the aspirations of early nineteenth century Socialists- nationalising the banks- required Capitalists to actually achieve it.
Class consciousness is an important aspect of Socialism, it would be hard to find a period in recent history when the majority have been so aware that their interests are not the same as the uber-rich

It has rarely been so clear that the interests of the few are not the same as those of the vast bulk of either European societies or the world outside it. At a time of rising unemployment, a handful of people who are already fantastically rich continue to pay themselves obscene salaries and bonuses. Of course there is nothing in this that is unusual, it’s just not usually done in so cavalier a fashion. Although there  is nothing mechanical in the process, most Socialist thinkers have been clear that the popular realisation that there really is a class distinction between what the Occupy protesters refer to as the 1% and the rest of us is an important first step towards establishing Socialism. Whatever the media and political classes may pretend, Socialism is not – and never was – a single party or policy. It is a process. And that process is being seen on the streets across Europe
Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement

Global economic forces have rendered socialism powerless. Financial speculation, and investment flows can make or break economies, and the agents who channel these monies want to see countries liberalise, privatise and de-regulate more. This is being shown by the speculative attacks on Eurozone countries where the markets are showing they can force governments to implement tough austerity or even force changes in government without an election as has happened in Greece and Italy where technocrats have taken over as Heads of Government.[1] These more flexible markets generate higher levels of growth and prosperity, and provide higher returns on investment, encouraging more. Countries which try to resist globalisation and liberal economic markets, as in ‘old Europe’, suffer stagnant growth and higher unemployment as a result. Old socialist-style economic models of tight economic regulation and central planning are unsustainable. [1] Frankel, Jeffrey, ‘Let European technocrats weave their magic’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/let-european-technocrats-weave-their-magic-20111128-1o37s.html
It is impossible to acquire the information necessary to create a coherent economy

A planned economy requires that the planners have the information necessary to allocate resources in the right way.  This is a virtually impossible task. The world contains trillions of different resources: my labour, iron ore, Hong Kong harbour, pine trees, satellites, car factories – etc.  The number of different ways to use, combine and recombine these resources is unimaginably vast.  And almost all of them are useless.  For example, it would be a mistake to combine Arnold Schwarzenegger with medical equipment and have him perform brain surgery.   Centralised planning cannot possibly sort through the myriad of way of arranging resources to arrive at the most efficient usage.   Only a decentralised price system can achieve this via the institution of private property and associated duties and rights.[1] [1] Boudreaux, Donald J, ‘Information and Prices’.  http://econlib.org/library/Enc/InformationandPrices.html
Although there are protests as a result of the banking crisis and the resulting financial meltdown, they have no cohesive ideology

Socialism has frequently been defined by its opponents and as Capitalism has changed so have the political responses made to it. The fact that this iteration of socialism is different should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of Socialism. That earlier generations of Socialists would not have recognised a blog or a Twitter account doesn’t change the fact that they recognise the flaws of Capitalism and reject the widely accepted views of the last twenty years or so that if everything is left to the market then everything will come out just fine.
Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better

It seems odd to quote the wife of an investment banker commenting about the abuse of other people’s money. What is becoming increasingly clear in critiques both from the left and the right is that we can actually afford a welfare state just fine but not at the same time as allowing a bunch of Wall Street wideboys to play fast and loose with the nation’s money. In terms of twentieth century ideologies, certainly there have been changes on both sides of the political fence – the rise of moralising neo-cons and a growing far right is nothing for Conservatives to write home about – but the idea that Capitalism now reigns supreme rather than having the guts of it corpulent excesses scattered across the capitals of Europe is simply laughable. As the high priests of Capital write themselves yet another cheque, an increasing number of people are objecting to the idea that public services should be closed so that the very rich can have their taxes reduced simply won’t wash.
Even the leaders of the Left have given up on Socialism as a creed and have now accepted the vast majority of modern Capitalist principles

Remembering that those  states that dashed after the illusory prize of low taxes and deregulated banking are currently only being propped up by the ratings agencies should give politicians around the world- both radical and conventional- something to think about. However, even the most casual wander around the blogosphere makes clear that the principles of market economics are a long way from being universally agreed. The intellectual recovery from the assault posed by Thatcherism and Reaganomics has taken time but is certainly taking place and it is increasingly the Right that appears intellectually bankrupt. Organisations like the New Economics Foundation are approaching old problems in new ways alongside a whole range of popular movements – environmental, youth led, immigrant led and others. The fact that modern socialism has as much to do with the industrial struggles of the seventies as it does with the Spanish Civil War in the thirties should really come as no surprise.