Bowerman, Fixx and the Mexican Cartel

 

We are, perhaps, the healthiest people who ever existed. It's hard to drive safely because of the joggers in the road. Bill Bowerman's Jogging, in 1966 (you know him – he was the founder of Nike), started the craze and Jim Fixx's The Complete Book of Running, in 1977,ⁱ turned it into a national obsession. And there's more. Sales of all kinds of health supplements are at record levels and the use of “alternative” medicine to provide more health options has mushroomed in recent decades. There's no doubt about it. America is health conscious.

It's interesting that “good health,” like thinness, has become a fad.ⁱⁱ What's more striking is that the decision was entirely that of the individuals involved. No laws or regulations drove the movement, although the quest for the fountain of youth, better health and lower insurance rates certainly contributed to it. And, with insurance picking up the tab to a degree, we now badger our doctors for “uppers” and “downers” to add to our good feelings. All we need is a prescription (which is not too difficult to get) and what we're doing is perfectly okay. In fact, it's part of our national culture.

For a variety of political and economic reasonsⁱⁱⁱ the Federal government has chosen to limit involvement in all of these issues and, for the most part, to ignore more than token regulation of tobacco and alcohol. But simultaneously, for example, while collecting taxes on these items (since they are accepted parts of our lives and economy) they require warnings, either for everyone with tobacco, or for pregnant women with alcohol.^iv Governmental attitudes on a variety of issues are schizophrenic.

It's easy to simplify – to try to boil down complex issues to a manageable size. But those who do so are accused of missing nuances, of missing the forest and focusing on individual trees. As H. L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Their opponents – the opponents of simplification – see them as oversimplifying, and they, consequently, having a contrary approach, are seen as complicating the questions – of creating forests where they don't exist. That leaves us with two opposed formulations. When questioned about his smoking habits, Freud, who always managed to find a(n unconscious) sexual meaning for every act,^v is reputed to have said, “Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.” Cigars stink, but I tend to favor Freud's simplistic approach in this respect – especially when contrary arguments are complex and hypothetical. So I'll oversimplify, and boil down a complex issue: the legalization of narcotics.

First of all, let's get the obvious out of the way: by and large narcotics are harmful – especially when taken without a valid medical indication.^vi That is not a point of contention. But that is only a small part of the problem. Of greater significance, at least in my mind, is the cost to our society of the illegal drug culture. I am aware that many volumes have been written on the subject covering all aspects of the problem, aspects much more complex than I am stating, but, as I said, I prefer to oversimplify because I think that many of the arguments on the subject are anecdotal and emotional, and center on theoretical questions rather than facts.^vii So I'll exhibit my own biases, and focus on the points I consider important even though I know that I am omitting many issues of contention.

One of those points – a very basic one for me – is that people are responsible for their own choices, and blaming them on society is too easy and disingenuous at best. Addicts typically^viii are young and are risk-takers. In fact, to a degree, we live in a society of risk-takers. Some satisfy their appetites for pleasure with fatty foods, some with cigarettes, some with sex, others with alcohol or drugs. Drawing the line at the last of these is a moral or political judgment. But where does personal choice come in. “Choice” is a catchword of modern life, indicating that the government has no right to interfere in an individual's life. It's the mantra of the pro-abortion movement. As time goes by, though, real choices are narrowed and there is an increase in the involvement the government^ix takes in setting “standards” for us.

A completely different consideration is the “drug trade” and its costs. Among the costs, in addition to the money spent on the drugs themselves, is the criminal behavior which they engender. That behavior consists of illegal acts^x to get money to support the addicts' habits and the need of addicts to involve others in order to pay for their own drugs. Because of the illegality of the use, it is risky for the addict to seek education and rehabilitation. That's not a risk worth taking. Besides, a large part of the other risk and the tragedy is imposed on innocent individuals who, themselves, have nothing to do with the drugs. It's a matter of being in the way of those who do.

The money, however, is a big consideration. Billions are made selling narcotics, and the beneficiaries do not hesitate to use that money for illegal purposes, including the elimination of competitors and the bribing of police and public officials so as to make sale easier and more profitable. In addition to American profiteers there are many in other countries, and while we are sending money abroad to fight the drug trade, far more is available to those who sell it. By our purchases, we encourage the poor in other countries to raise and sell the plants from which drugs are made^xi There was a time when our allies would help us in the battle, but we can no longer depend on the good will of other governments (which are now thumbing their noses at America) to control coca and marijuana crops, or to let us do so.

Other costs include crime fighting – also in the billions. Those costs include the use of law enforcement to apprehend the traffickers and the users, to protect uninvolved citizens, and to support prisons. There is also the cost to society of the addicts themselves. Prohibition leads to the avoidance of rehabilitation and continued reliance on others to provide support – some willingly and others not so. If that money were saved by legalization of drugs, however, it could be used for education^xii and rehabilitation, and for job creation to satisfy those who attribute drug use to the lack of employment. If drugs were made available inexpensively and legally by non-profit organizations^xiii and the gains taken out of drug sales, it's likely that much of the crime related to the narcotics trade would disappear.

But one of the best reasons to end the war on drugs is that we're losing. There are occasional news articles on the location of imported drugs and the apprehension of drug lords,^xiv but the trade persists and is increasing. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol for a variety of reasons including the general disregard for the law. Perhaps it's time to reconsider the prohibition of “illegal drugs.” Perhaps we should not legalize everything at once – the legalization of medical marijuana is a good start – but it is my view that legalization, in addition to being a wise decision, is inevitable. And whatever regulations we leave in place^xv should be aimed at providing facilities for the treatment of those afflicted.

We pride ourselves on our health – at least some of us do – and drugs will remain dangerous, but the dangers to the non-users will be minimized, and more funds will be available for treatment of users who will have less concern in seeking help. What do we have to lose?

Next episode: “Blue Skies” – Coming soon to your neighborhood.

i      Until then he'd been involved in writing puzzle books like Games for the Super-Intelligent.

ii    I have to admit (full disclosure and all that sort of thing) that I view much of this as harebrained hokum. Fixx died of a heart attack at 52; many of the supplements have been shown to be useless or harmful; and the alternative therapies – which themselves are often are harmless or useless – may delay the use of established treatments, often to a time when they may no longer be effective. But my view of this buncombe is irrelevant. More important – and the point at issue – is that good health seems to be an American fixation.

iii    Including payments by lobbyists to politicians.

iv    Indeed, that proscription has, on occasion, led to the refusal to serve wine to a pregnant woman.

v     Making complex something that appears simple.

vi    A prescription, in and of itself, is not a valid indication. Sadly, unprincipled physicians will sometimes sell them.

vii    There is no question that many will disagree with me. Unfortunately there are many ways to interpret the “facts” which, like statistics, may be misused. I'm sure that if I misuse them no one will see.

viii    But certainly not invariably.

ix    Sometimes “government” is simply a middle-level bureaucrat “regulating” his own biases by dint of legislation which gives wide latitude for regulation.

x     Including robbery and murder.

xi    By and large the poor make very little on the trade. The big profits go to the traffickers.

xii    The argument may be made that legalization will be interpreted as sanction of addiction and the general public, as well as the addict, must be made aware that the decision to legalize is in the interests of treating a horrible disease. It should be clear, as it is with cigarettes and alcohol, that use is dangerous and should be avoided, but if that is not the case then treatment should be sought.

xiii   Better a non-profit organization than the government which might be tempted to turn it into a revenue source.

xiv   These items are news because they are exciting, but they relate to a small minority of the drug shipments, most of which get through without problems. Were that not the case, people would not take the risks.

xv    Regulations which should be in the purview of the states, not the federal government. The Constitution leaves to the states the regulation of issues not specifically covered there, and drug enforcement is not covered.