DWI – Turkey

No. This is not a new crime show based in Europe and Asia. In fact television has nothing to do with it. But let me not jump the gun. First let me relate what just happened. I'm too tired to get involved with side issues.

I was driving home from Thanksgiving dinner which we had with my sons and their families. We do that every year, on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. People usually have more obligations than they can handle already on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, so we've taken to observing it on Sunday. We merge the celebration with one for Hanukkah, which almost invariably takes place at a later date (last year was a rare exception).

Anyway, we had turkey with all the fixings, even though I'm not a big fan of the bird. Finished off with pecan pie which I do like. By that time it was getting a little late so we decided to drive home. I'm a slow, law-abiding driver and we wanted to beat the Sunday night traffic jam.

I was in the slow lane (of four) when I saw a sign saying that the lane would end in one-and-a-half miles. Since there were no cars near me I moved one lane to the left. Almost immediately I saw red and blue flashing lights behind me, so I moved back into the right lane. There was still plenty of time before the lane would disappear, and I wanted to give the police car plenty of leeway to go after the lawbreaker. To my surprise, though, it moved right also – immediately behind me. I hadn't been speeding and I assumed the trooper's concern had something to do with my moving out of the slow lane.

I'm a good citizen so I pulled off the road – way off the road so I wouldn't confuse any other drivers. The police cruiser pulled up behind me and stopped with its lights still flashing. Two policemen exited from it and one came up on each side of my car. I must admit that I was relieved that their guns weren't drawn. I lowered my window.

“License and registration, please.”

“I moved over because the lane is ending.”

“License and registration, please.”

“I wasn't speeding.”

“License and registration, please.”

So I gave him my license and registration which were both up to date. And my car had been inspected. I couldn't figure out what he thought was wrong.

“Were you texting?”

“Of course not!”

“On the cell phone?”

“I don't even own one. Or any of those modern devices. I don't believe in them. I even have manual transmission in my car.”

“Been drinking?”

Now I have to admit that I had a glass of wine with the meal, but that was almost three hours earlier and I couldn't imagine that it was affecting my driving.

The other trooper didn't wait for my answer but pulled out a couple of funny looking devices and handed them to the officer next to me.

“Breathe into this.”

I did. Then he handed me the other.

“Breathe into this one too.”

Again I did as I was told. But I was completely confused, and I demanded an explanation.

“Why did you stop me? I was obeying the laws and I was driving safely.”

“You were swerving from one lane to the other. I'd call that distracted driving or driving while impaired.”

He looked down at his instruments.

“Your blood alcohol is normal, but you have an elevated tryptophan. Looks like you overdosed on turkey. That's illegal in this state. The tryptophan in turkey makes you sleepy. Everybody knows that. Your wife can drive you home.” He took a quick sniff in her direction. “Her breath smells okay.” That lifetime supply of Sen-Sen really paid off.

I should have expected it, but I had paid no attention when they started putting up signs saying that turkeys wouldn't be sold to people under 18. It didn't apply to me so I didn't bother to think about why that was the case. Anyway, the officer said the level was only slightly high, but it's better to be safe than sorry, and he didn't think the judge would be too hard on me since this was a first offense. But I'd be wise in the future not to eat turkey before driving. It's a dumb recommendation, but it's fine with me since I don't ordinarily eat any.

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

Alright. I made it up. And turkey doesn't have any more tryptophan than lots of other foods. Less than some. But “everybody knows” that turkey makes you sleepy (not really), and it's “better to be safe than sorry.” Something doesn't have to be true to be sanctified and codified by society. It just has to appear on the front page of the Times to be accepted as gospel. Confirmatory studies are of no interest, and if they appear at all it will be on an inside page. So we jump the gun. Why take the risk of immunizing your child. It may cause autism. It doesn't matter if people die because they, or their peers, aren't immunized. And depending on the latest news, fats, or coffee, or carbs, or vitamin C, or something else, is good for us or bad for us – but it's better to be safe than sorry.

And that's one of the many problems with our society. We have a great need to do something. Especially something everyone knows is good. It may be that we follow some old wives' tale, or an untried treatment for a disease that doesn't exist. It may be a policy change in politics or education or security, but we have to do something. “Don't just stand there, do something.” No one is comfortable wasting the time to find out if what they heard is really true. They'd prefer to look for the solution before they've explored the problem. So there will be a committee, or a law, or some new bureaucratic regulations. But it's better to be safe than sorry. After all, what can go wrong?

Oh well. That's the way we are. I'll tell it to the judge.

Better Things For Better Living

                                                                                  

Mark Rothko committed suicide.ⁱ So did Diane Arbus, Gorky, van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf. And George Sands was insane, along with Nietzsche, Nijinsky and, perhaps, Leo Tolstoi. Yet all were great artists. According to Plato, in Phaedrus, a “divine madness” is responsible for the productions of great artists.

Allen Ginsberg took hallucinogens. His “divine madness” was augmented by LSD. And other great artists have also taken drugs.ⁱⁱ Keith Haring, for example, and Cary Grant, Ronnie Gilbert and Aldous Huxley. If their art was thus improved, were they guilty of taking “performance-enhancement” medications? And if they took those medications, is their art in any way less valuable and enduring?

“Performance-enhancement” in sports is perceived as one of the great evils of our times. Most newsworthy nowadays is Lance Armstrong, who lost both medals and endorsements because of the scandal, but overall such behavior is best exemplified by Barry Bonds who, it is alleged, took steroids to build up his body and, with it, his home run production. He “cheated.”ⁱⁱⁱ For this he was condemned by Congress, team owners and other baseball officials. But, using an expression from another sport, perhaps we've jumped the gun. Perhaps our society is of two minds about such drugs and “cheating.”^iv

When preparing for the SAT's, numerous students take courses to improve their scores. Isn't that the academic equivalent of taking performance-enhancement drugs? Countless Hollywood stars undergo cosmetic surgery to help their careers. They, too, are enhancing their performance artificially. They, too, are “cheating.”

If a team prays together before a game, or a public figure smokes a cigarette to relax before an appearance, is that unjustified performance-enhancement?^v If, before a battle, an officer “psyches up” his forces, is he doing something wrong? If we have a drink or two at a cocktail party to help ourselves produce small talk and immunize us to that of others, have we broken some kind of social convention?

And when candidates prepare for a debate – when they practice their “spontaneous” responses to questions they expect, or to anticipated comments by their opponents – is that any different? But there I go again.

As a society, we're not sure. Milli Vanilli was drummed out of the entertainment industry for lip-syncing its own songs^vi while Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Marilyn Monroe, among others, were praised for their wonderful performances even though Marni Nixon dubbed “their” musical numbers. And there is no question about Sid Caesar's comedic genius. We don't fault him for mouthing jokes by Mel Brooks, Woody Allen and others.

We live at a time when team owners offer huge salaries for stars who bring fans to the stadium. Records help to bring out the fans, and that's what's really important,^vii so whatever accomplishes that goal is justified. If steroids achieve it, owners will look the other way irrespective of long-term deleterious effects of the drugs. As long as it doesn't become public.

In the history of baseball for example, the ball itself was made more “bouncy” so as to go farther, designated hitters have been used to increase run production, and baseball stadiums have been designed to match the strengths of hitters, while players are chosen who will do well in a particular setting. That's the sport's way of improving performance, excitement, and attendance. Everybody does it.

Of course, “everybody does it” is not justification for doing wrong. But if, in fact, everybody does it, perhaps we should look again and reevaluate whether “it” really is wrong. Cosmetic surgery will not make a bad actress a good one, nor will steroids turn an average baseball player into a superstar.

Certainly those who perform exceptionally are exceptional, though artificial aids may enhance their glitter. When a superstar tries to improve his image to get more of the money that owners are throwing around, it is understandable. But we don't want our children to see our hypocrisy, so we castigate publicly what we simultaneously encourage. Perjury by anyone, including our heroes (in this case falsely denying the use of drugs – before Congress or the courts) is never permissible. We expect honesty of our superheroes, and justifiably so. But if one is faced with the possibility of losing his market value though, because society is looking for a scapegoat, falsification is understandable, even if inexcusable.

So is “performance-enhancement” acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer isn't quite as obvious as we'd like to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

Next episode:  "Paying The Bills" -- Avoidable.

 

 

i      Look it up. The examples that follow, as well. I'm too tired to document all this.

ii     We can't sanction “immoral” behavior so we ignore it and focus on the results. At least most of the time. We sometimes reject the results of immorality and unethical behavior. It's high-minded, even if it's sometimes foolish. Indeed, it may be immoral to ignore the results of medical research performed unethically, when the use of those results would help people, although some consider that the “right” thing to do. But that's a subject for another time.

iii    Breaking the rules by sports figures is not permitted because it's so public. Gambling may be an important fund-raiser for casinos and governments but, as Pete Rose discovered, it's forbidden for athletes.

iv     Many of them, having “done” marijuana or other drugs in the past, sound silly criticizing the athletes, especially if the critics' children are aware of their past (or, perhaps, ongoing) behavior.

v      It's certainly bad for his health, but it may calm him down.

vi    Actually they were scorned because they were caught and their actions publicized, embarrassing everyone else.

vii   Money makes the world go 'round.

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.