Harebrained Schemes 4

There's been a major change in society's view of homosexuality. Perhaps it should become the cultural norm – especially in overpopulated nations. There's a lot to be said for lowering the birthrate. China has tried it, but they missed an obvious solution while antagonizing their citizens by punishing them for having children. Instead of repressing the natural wishes of much of their population they should have encouraged that part of their number that would not produce children, and might wind up as happier and more compliant members of a society that supported them.

And for all nations it should not be ignored that the cost of homosexual unions would probably be lower, because prejudice still exists and there would be fewer people at the receptions. In fact, subsidization or such ceremonies should offered by the governments of enlightened countries. While there would be an initial expense, the savings in other programs (like Social Security and health care) would more than make up for it. And what liberal thinker could oppose such an advancement in the relationships of members of their society, especially one that lowered unemployment rates, and promoted an increase in the need for immigration of workers? All we need to do is get rid of those Bible-thumping bigots.

Sounds like win-win to me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Isn't it time we legalized narcotics as we do cigarettes and liquor. It's already being done in terms of cannabis in several states – for medical and therapeutic use as well as recreationally. At the same time there are numerous advertisements for programs which claim to be able to rid people of their addictions – specifically those caused by prescribed opioids. And until now people – Americans and citizens of other countries – are making fortunes off drugs while addicts, their families, and their communities suffer and die because of the drug trade.

Think of the benefits to our economy if the government received the profits from drugs and the states were free to tax them. The purity of the drugs could be better managed and some of the money obtained through drug sales could be used for treatment programs. And if drugs were legal, the traffic in illegal drugs would be eliminated and the gigantic cost associated with fighting “the war on drugs” would disappear as well. And, incidentally, the cost of the drugs could be decreased, lessening the crime associated with the current situation, when addicts rob and kill others to support their habits. Not only that, but those who take up a “forbidden pleasure” would have less incentive.

Addiction isn't something that can be viewed as good, but it exists. We've learned that the prohibition of alcohol doesn't work, and now we tax it while our citizens use it legally. We can't eliminate smoking, but we recognize that taxing tobacco products can be quite profitable. Additionally, a country that permits lotteries and other forms of gambling is in no position to proclaim the morality of an anti-drug position. (Indeed, prostitution laws should be reconsidered. The courts are making very liberal interpretations of what sexual practices are permitted by the Constitution – although those who wrote the original document might be confused by such interpretations.) And if we have no moral basis for prohibiting drugs, it is reasonable to wonder if we're not tilting windmills. And paying the price for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C. Northcote Parkinson, one of the twentieth century's most significant thinkers was, in fact, a polymath. He published many books as a naval historian, but his thinking far transcended his field of interest. His most famous accomplishment was the publication of “Parkinson's Law,” whose primary premise was that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." The work, whose subtitle was “The Pursuit of Progress,” not only documented the workings of the British civil service, but earned for Professor Parkinson recognition as an expert on administration. Indeed, he published further on the subject of the operation of administrative bodies, most notably “Parkinson's Law of Triviality,” which discussed in detail the “bike-shed effect.” His work inspired many others to examine the subject, and corollaries are numerous.

Not discussed, however, was the phenomenon I have noted personally. When reading anything – and that includes the professor's works – I tend to nod off. The time of the event is irrelevant as is the length of time available for sleep. The same happens when I'm just sitting quietly. It seems that sleep expands as well. And there is no time of its completion so there is plenty of room for expansion. Which raises the question: Can sleep expand to fill in for waking time?

There was a time when I thought this was my problem alone, but I find that many elderly retired individuals – especially men – have noticed the same thing. With more time available, increased sleeping has affected lots of these people. There is too much unoccupied time that could be put to good use. Hence I propose that society subsidize positions for the elderly, like walking the monsters under their grandchildren's beds, so as to contract the time available for sleep. Sleep, as we all know, is contrary to society's interests because those involved are not out supporting the economy.

And that's what it's all about. Professor Parkinson wanted to evaluate the amount of time wasted by those who were working to the clock. I want to be sure that as many as possible – both those currently employed but struggling to complete their assignments in the allotted time, and citizens reemployed following retirement – spend their earnings and not sleep away the time available to do this. Time is money. Sleep is wasted time.

Various Revelations

I've mentioned before that I want my essays to stay a year in advance, to outlive me, but that limits me to writing only once a week, and, if I only add to the end, I can't deal with current problems about which I want to comment. I think I've already mentioned the anecdote about the potential columnist who feared that he wouldn't have enough to say in columns twice a week He was asked if there were two thing in the news each week that made him angry. He answered in the affirmative and was told he should write about them.

There are more than two things a week that anger me. So I have more than enough material to increase my output. It's going to wind up at twice or thrice weekly. I've been writing these essays for quite a while, so it's likely that some of them are going to be repetitious, but those are the breaks of the game. Chances are you won't read them all anyway. This one will consist of a few unrelated thoughts that crossed my mind.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Today is the first anniversary of my cancer surgery and, surprise of surprises, I'm still alive and feeling reasonably well. Perhaps I was better in the past, but I'll take what I have, considering what might have been. Chemotherapy and its side effects are annoying but, they go with the territory. I look forward to suffering them for many years to come.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've said on many occasions that there are too many protests and marches that seem to be going on. Typically they're by liberals who invariably claim that they are working for a peaceable and mannerly society, as well as the promotion of American values which are threatened by everyone but them. For them the way to achieve a peaceable and mannerly society is by demonstrations, protests, and what is more an American value than the squelching of opposition. That's what they do in academia, where they stifle lectures by those with whom they disagree, and create “safe spaces” for those with the “right” views. Have you ever heard of conservatives shouting down a liberal speaker? Or,if they do, coming away from such an act unscathed?

Similarly, most protest marches are carried out by liberals protesting what they view as negative changes in society. And they do so in an angry way rather than by utilizing the civil behavior that they demand of others. The reason for the protest is not important. There seem to be a horde or people who will protest whatever is the cause du jour. As Eric Hoffer said (in The Passionate State of Mind), "In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued."

It's the mob action that counts -- and is far more satisfying and important to the discontented – than whatever they claim to want to protect.

Conservatives are accused of mob mentalities and mob action, but what I see in the papers doesn't seem to bear this out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I keep hearing on the radio about an assortment of programs that will help get people off drugs. The implication is that the causative medications are those provided by physicians. At the same time more and more states are approving or considering the use of “medical” marijuana. Marijuana has been shown to be an “entry” drug for some addicts. It seems we have mixed views on the value to society of addiction. There are even states that approve “recreational” marijuana. It's very progressive, but it's hard to square such an approach with programs to cure addiction, or the fact that the government has provided funds for that purpose. I've written about drug legalization in the past and, I suppose it's time to do so again. I'll do it! But my essay won't be published until next year..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Radio ads recently have also included endless promises of relief – if I owe ten thousand dollars or more. It may be credit card debt or what is due in taxes. After all, it's what I “deserve.” And, of course, they'll get a cut or some other charge. They don't say it but I suspect they feel that that's what they deserve. There is never any mention that you owe money to the companies because you spent more than you have, putting off the day of reckoning. It's so easy to spend money if all you need is a pieceOver of plastic. Even easier if you use several. But overspending isn't your fault. You deserve to have your debts reduced or canceled.

And your taxes reduced. Even if you haven't been paying; even if you haven't bothered to file returns for many years; you're a good person. It's someone else's fault. You deserve help. And there are firms that offer it. One telephone call and all your problems will be solved. It must be true. They said it and they wouldn't mislead you. You do that well enough without help.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's all of the unrelated thoughts for now. Maybe I'll do it again. It's easier than learning more about particular issues and formulating longer articles. We'll see.

Pot Luck

“When was using heroin, she lied, disappeared, and stole from her parents to support her $400-a-day habit. Her family paid her debts, never filed a police report and kept her addiction secret – until she was found dead last year of an overdose.” New York Times, October 31, 2015.

It's a sad story but, unfortunately, not unique. In 2013, the last year for which I could find statistics, nearly 9 thousand others suffered the same fate. (Additionally there were numerous deaths from other addictive drugs, including prescription medications.) There's a lot more to consider in the story, though. And many questions that are raised by it. [See also “Bowerman, Fixx, And The Mexican Cartel,” March 6, 2011]

The Times report makes us grieve with the parents, while noting the fact that they had contributed to the problem both economically, and with their silence – their cover-up to protect their own, and their daughter's reputations. We grieve even more for the girl who, for reasons we cannot imagine, became addicted, and lost her life to the addiction. They are all responsible for a preventable death and for the sorrow that surrounds it. They share the guilt, though only the parents are left to suffer, and they will do that for the rest of their lives.

But responsibility is ours as well. We are a society that deals with the drug problem more emotionally than rationally. If there are people who gain riches from the drug trade we spare no expense to track them down and prosecute them, whether high or low level, whether American or foreign. Indeed, we spend large sums to destroy poppy fields in other countries, and to aid in programs that identify and capture drug profiteers in other countries. Consequently our expenses for law enforcement and foreign aid to deal with these goals is tremendous.

And there are additional costs incurred in the justice system – the police, courts, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, etc. – and in medical facilities and funeral costs. There are certainly questions about where a young girl can get $400 each day to support her habit. It can't all have come from her mother's purse but, more likely, resulted from other violations of the law including stealing from others and placing them at risk. The costs of helping an addict's victims – money, medical costs, psychological help – and for the policing that accompanies an addict's crimes, are other drains on tax revenues. If someone is mugged or murdered to help an addict support his habit, it is destructive and expensive for society.

There are, of course, other ways to gain the funds necessary. They include the sale of stolen property, the sale of drugs to others, and the sale of self. Prostitution and illegal drugs are closely-linked “industries.”

So to deal with all these problems, we are attempting a “war” on drugs. It is our goal to eliminate the scourge. But prohibition didn't work when we tried it before. It simply created a criminal industry. Clearly it isn't working now. Nor are existing drug laws. We simultaneously delegitimize most narcotics while making the use of marijuana legal, and even praise its effects. (How fortunate for pot and its users.) What message do we send? And what are our youth to learn from a society that makes other drugs illegal because they are addicting and dangerous, while taxing us to support a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? (Its budget, by the way, is over $1.2 billion annually.) The Bureau helps us tax these addictions while paying more tax to support the agency itself.

Why do people take drugs? Certainly peer pressure and the quest for adventure contribute. And there are those who take drugs (or drink) to escape reality. An important additional factor, however – one on which the other reasons may build – is rebellion. Most addicts begin at an age when it is fashionable to mistrust authority and to taste “forbidden fruit.” If your parents, teachers, or other authorities say “no,” it's obvious that you'll want to try. If no one cares, neither will you.

Suppose narcotics were legal. Suppose they were provided by the government (along with education and rehabilitation) at low cost and without stigma. The savings in law enforcement (and supervising government bureaus) would more than pay the costs of such a program. And the revenue from taxing producers could also be used for this purpose. The distribution by the government might also remove the attraction for some users and lessen the numbers, as well as lower the incidence of associated crime, because costs will be far lower. Taking the profit out of narcotics is likely to have a greater influence on the drug trade than policing or payments to foreign governments. (And it will eliminate, or at least sharply decrease, the injuries and deaths that occur during drug raids.)

For those who do take drugs, however, the distribution by the government would allow better supervision, education, medical and rehabilitation. (It will also take away the temptation to defy the government – at least this way.) And the materials distributed would have a known potency rather than pose the risk of drugs purchased on the streets from unknown and unregulated sources. That, by itself, should decrease the incidence of overdoses and other toxic reactions.

The families of addicts may complain that we're sanctioning a deadly substance, and that someone who hasn't lived with an addict can't imagine how horrible the disease is. And they're right. But the goal is to control the disease better and – as cynical as it may seem – to face reality. That's the approach we've taken with alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, automobile deaths and those that happen in the construction industry are predictable, but we try to regulate rather than criminalize them.

Perhaps that's the way we should go with drugs.  It's worth a try.

Next episode: “Bully For You” – I hope you like bullies. There are lots of them in jail.

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.