Asymmetrical Information

I'd like to see the blogosphere collectively take on the project of laughing out of existence the whole "war on..." meme. After the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror, it should be easy to continually observe that the whole war metaphor for government action on social issues just means "appoint a czar, blow billions uselessly, claim results at re-election time".

It's telling that the Bush administration can't find a war czar, beyond the obvious point that no one wants to attach their name to the conduct of the war in Iraq. It means that the metaphor is breaking down. What it needs is a good hard shove from the bottom.

Puritanism? I mean, why else would be ban anything that gets you high (other than alcohol or nicotine, although the former's been tried and I'm not sure the latter won't)? When you get down to it, there's nothing in particular that prevents opioid addicts from functioning in society (viz. methadone). A huge number of people (and no, I'm not one of them) use cannabis recreationally without turning into total stoners.

So what? There are still plenty of people out there who insist that "oh, drugs were different in my day" and "these are just too dangerous" and, yes, Puritans. I live in the deep South, and there are lots of dry counties around here (and in neighboring states). One of them near me recently held a countywide referendum on allowing liquor by the drink to be sold (no liquor stores, mind you - just drinks in restaurants). It lost, 60-40. So you can go to a TGI Friday's that has no alcoholic beverages at all. Not only that, because it's a dry county, you can't bring your own wine with you to dinner (a classic solution for places without an alcohol license).

I don't know if we want funniness to be the criterion. I've always thought property was funny.

"Oh, this is YOURS is it? You OWN it? But what if I take it? Oh, you'll sic your friends on me who also agree that you really OWNED it all along."

See, property is silly.

Now if you convince me that ownership is sensible, then I don't see why I would balk at slavery for its silliness.

'I'd like to see the blogosphere collectively take on the project of laughing out of existence the whole "war on..." meme. '

It is time for a war on metaphorical wars.

Lee,

I need some free stuff. Could you please tell me where you live?

People are not deep thinkers. Most think that if something is "bad," it should be illegal. That's all there is to it.

I feel about the same about democracy.

"So... you voted that I should pay you taxes and you think that makes it right? Ha ha hah!" *Ugmph* (sound of thugs making things right)

So, what is your solution? Do away with prescriptions? I'd be all for that.

I don't see how your example boosts your case. The doctor in question was charged with giving opiates to people who were re-selling or misusuing them. Are you suggesting that it should be ok to do that? Because there is one person somewhere who really needs that much medicine, then we should allow doctors to dispense away?

Elvis' doctor approves.

Ummm... it's not quite "silly" or "pointless," actually. The thing is, we have a hierarchical society, with "winners" and "losers" in many many mileaus, one of which is drug use. It's psychological necessity for many of us to belittle or belabor other people with lower-than-average incomes, people with larger-than-average families, people with inadequate social skills, people with meager personal attractiveness and unnattractive personal habits, etc.

I repeat, a necessity. It's an organizing principle of our society, and societies don;t use their organizing principles in half-hearted ways. We NEED our losers. We NEED our excuses for spite and harrassment and punishment.

I wish I were joking. I'm not.

Why have so few other people noticed that this is not merely wrong, but also thoroughly silly?

When you figure that one out, let me know, because I've got similar questions about guns, immigration, and taxes. We libertarians keep talking but I don't think anyone is listening. Oh well. So it goes.

I once had the amazing experience of having a discussion with a marijuana dealer who argued against legalization. Here's a short version of the conversation.

Me: The Drug War is so silly. I can't wait for our generation to be in charge so we can get rid of it.

Him: Oh, weed should be illegal. People can't handle weed, especially kids.

Me: Well you do OK. What makes you capable of smoking weed responsibly when others can't?

Him: I've been smoking since I was a kid.

At that point I realized that the guy was an idiot and I ended the discussion.

Here is another example of how stupid the "drug war" can be. This poor guy's attempt to alleviate his continuous, unbearable pain only landed him in prison. The government makes its excuses but anyone can see the BS for what it is.

It isn't much different than if you grew up in 1850's Savannah vs. living next door to Harriet Beecher Stowe. Very few laughed at the idea of slavery in 1850. Perhaps 25 years from now, society will laugh at the War on Drugs.

Since most people, including cops, see through the 'war'. It simply isn't enforced. On the sly, most cops will not bust you for a bag of pot. So society adjusts to 'silly' laws and just ignores them.

Lee writes "See, property is silly. Now if you convince me that ownership is sensible, then I don't see why I would balk at slavery for its silliness."

One short answer for why property isn't silly is that questions like "so who decides whether we use the land as a primeval buffalo sanctuary, raise grain on it, raise pigs on it, or slaughter the piglets right now because we feel like partying?" always need an answer. People who criticize property are very reliably either deeply confused or have in mind some other mechanism for making such decisions. Critics who are serious enough to commit to some specific other mechanism, and claim it won't be (at least) as nasty and inefficient as property, have turned out to be rather reliably incorrect.

By comparison, other questions like "so who will be the king?" and "who will be the owner and who will be the slave?" and "who will decide who is allowed to defend himself?" and "who will decide what religion we have?" *have* been treated as fundamental unavoidable questions by various societies and intellectuals in the past, and even, evidently, by illustrious anonymous commenters on blogs today. But they turn out to be fundamentally silly --- not just in the sense that earnest mouth-breathers profess to believe they don't need to be answered, but that societies which unask them not only prosper, but also tend to mop the floor with societies that take them seriously.

It seems to me that anyone who looks at the characteristics of the questions which have been successfully unasked, and think about whether "who will decide what drugs are allowed" might be more like them or more like the problem of who decides what incompatible thing to do with an inanimate physical resource, you risk coming to a libertarian conclusion.

(disclaimer: I'm not claiming that I've provided a terribly rigorous, complete or satisfying defense of property, all I was aiming for is a minimal standard for arguments that we should do without property in order that such arguments avoid being manifestly idiotic, dishonest, or both.)

I also had a conversation with a pot dealer, way back around 78 or 79. He also thought it should stay against the law. He felt that if it was legalized, it would throw him out of a job. Probably right at that.

Personally, I'd be fine with legalization of most drugs. (No, I don't use them.)

But to play a bit of a devil's advocate for a moment; Why are there speed limits? Ostensibly, over a certain speed in a given situation, you loose control of your car. So speeding is made illegal. It's illegal to give up your ability to stop yourself from committing certain crimes. It's the same with drugs. Addictions or LSD cause people to lose the ability to uphold the social contract. So they're outlawed.

As for slavery, well what are you supposed to do with conquered peoples? The women can be carried off, of course. But the men... well, either you extract labor from them or you kill them.

Or you can just allow them to go about their business and extract tribute for 'protection' or something. That works too.

Just as an aside, I think there has probably been slavery for about as long as there has been property in land, and certainly longer than there's been any level of government beyond the village headman. It seems like it's silly in the same sense that war or sex are silly. They do sound ridiculous when described a certain way, but they still go on. Thank God, slavery mostly doesn't still go on. (There are exceptions, but nothing like the scale there once was.)

I suggest distinguishing between the war on drugs in general, and the specific policy decision to prosecute doctors in order to crack down on opiate use, with the result of causing some people in constant, horrible pain to not be able to get proper pain treatment. It's quite possible to be in favor of the first, while thinking the second is a terrible idea.

I think you're looking at slavery the wrong way. As an economic institution it meant you owned the labor of another human being. Involuntary servitude & all that. How that relates to income taxes is something to think about.

Ryan, is it against the law to drive at all though? Alcohol is legal but regulated. You can only buy certain types at certain strengths. The same thing could be done with other "recreational" substances. Yes, you will always have people that over indulge.

I've seen people too obese to "uphold the social contract". Hopefully we wouldn't outlaw certain types of food.

Frank,

I have long felt that there is a legitmate position in favor of legalizing pot and there is a legitimate position in favor of legalizing recreational drug use overall. However, the two positions are not the same. The analogy that you and Ryan are using works to prove my point.

Pot is the 55 MPH speed limit. You can drive over 55 in most cases without incident. Crack is driving 120 MPH while blindfolded. There is a good chance that bad things are going to happen.

There are drugs whose sole purpose is the "monster high". How do you legalize them? If you water it down (Crack-lite? "Now, with half the buzz") they will either find a way to make it stronger or continue to buy the bootleg version.

In a lot of ways, pot compares favorably to alcohol. If we were starting this country again and got to pick one mind-altering substance, I might even pick pot over alcohol. And if in this magical world the only person affected by your substance abuse was you, I wouldn't give a rip what you did, with any substance. Back here on earth, that isn't the case.

To steal a debate point from Megan regarding a completely different issue: Don't explain how this policy change will affect you. Explain how it will affect those on the fringe.

But explain it in both directions. Legalizing drugs means more users, but fewer users dead from overdoses because of crappy quality control. It means more addicts, but fewer kids dead in a shootout between gangs over who gets to sell drugs on some city block. It means more people in jail because they robbed someone to support their habit or committed assault or whatever while they were high, but few people in jail for selling drugs.

Hm. Check this out.

I've seen people too obese to "uphold the social contract". Hopefully we wouldn't outlaw certain types of food.

Frank - I don't follow. You've seen people who are so obese that they couldn't control themselves and hit or killed someone else? What do you think the social contract is?

Let me put it another way; drug use, even alcohol, makes certain people more likely to violate the law. Some drugs are worse in this regard than others. Which is presumably why some people are opposed to it.

albatross - not to mention that the war on drugs is expensive in so many ways; cops, productivity hits from people in jail, loss of freedom, balance of trade takes a hit...

I don't understand why marijuana isn't illegal. Coke, I can see. But marijuana?

Should say I don't understand why marijuana _is_ illegal. And it's status as a schedule 1 drug violates the FDA's own standards.

I don't even understand how it is possible that, in order to keep some people from ruining their lives with prescription painkillers, we are willing to condemn other people to horrendous suffering.

It's called "utilitarianism" -- and the example you give us here, Jane, demonstrates its severe shortcomings as a basis for determining policy.

The short answer is that the War on Drugs rots your brain. Certain substances get classified as Evil. Once that happens, any sense of proportion or cost-benefit analysis goes out the window.

I've seen people too obese to "uphold the social contract".

I don't know what Frank met, but I know a man who's been living on welfare for over 20 years - and the only disability I can see is that he's too fat to fit through most doors or usefully do physical labor, and too stupid for any desk job. He was at some time able to father a large family, most of whom have been in jail. Is not being a parasite part of the social contract?

And then there are fat people and airplane seats. I'd think that keeping your body out of your neigbor's seat is part of the implied contract when you buy a seat on an airplane...

Markm is correct. I had though that being able to care for oneself and not be a burden on others was part of the social contract. I spent sometime on wikipedia this morning attempting to remedy my ignorance.

I'm going to make a bit of a different argument here. We are supposedly fighting a "War on Drugs". Now, personal beliefs aside, let's assume that we accept that decision. It's war. So, we're up against Heroinistan, Cocainia, the People's Republic of Ecstacy, and all the rest. Well, are we fighting the war smartly? I don't think so. It strikes me that we have one particular opponent, Marijuanania, that's incredibly difficult to fight. I mean it takes up a quarter of our war budget to keep hitting at these guys. But, we're not doing really much damage at all. Whatsmore, Marijuanania is a very, very passive opponent. They're not really doing much in the way of attacking you. It's more like they're sitting on the couch eating Mallomars. Now, your best intelligence indicates that they'd have no problem at all signing a separate peace. You can clear out and devote all those resources to all the other opponents. They'd pretty much respond with "Sure, whatever dude." Does it really make sense to continue focusing the war effort on these guys, rather than striking a separate peace? Or am I missing something?

Thank God, slavery mostly doesn't still go on. (There are exceptions, but nothing like the scale there once was.)

At the height of the slave trade, the US imported 80,000 slaves in one year.

In 2005 the US imported between 14,500 (State Department estimate) and 50,000 slaves (independent estimate). The US is not a particularly egregious example in this department. Most wealthy nations still import a fair number of slaves and, conversely, poor countries still export them.

While in per capita terms, the slave trade has declined by orders of magnitude, in absolute numbers, it hasn't.

Thinking of it as "silly" is part of the problem.

Markm is correct. I had though that being able to care for oneself and not be a burden on others was part of the social contract.

Being a parasite as violation of the social contract, I can buy. But neither seem particularly tied to obesity. Being fat doesn't make you go on welfare, especially nowadays when you can work from home.

That was the leap I wasn't making. As for taking up your airline seat; that's between you, them and the airline. I agree there are implied social standards being violated there. Personally, I'd like to see airlines charge by the pound, like they do with overweight luggage.

"In 2005 the US imported between 14,500 ... and 50,000 slaves..."

Would you care to elaborate, or provide links?

I don't even understand how it is possible that, in order to keep some people from ruining their lives with prescription painkillers, we are willing to condemn other people to horrendous suffering.

Answer: It is hard to tell those people apart or to be confident that the individuals in the second group won't become those in the first.

The Hippocratic oath reveals the transformation of a person's role in relation to the patient as essentially a parent. While I agree with Dr. Hurwitz (?) as he is presented in treating patients in pain, we all know that parents differ and some would take a different view.

I view these examples as rather tangential to the 'war on drugs' which to me is more about countering a libertarian view toward getting high (or headaches from Buspar though that is a rare occurrence). Talk about a failed war; in my view Senator Reid missed his calling. Talk about taking slaves; the Mexicans and Columbians are lucky to stay alive in civil society in the face of the money Americans pay narcotraffickers to do their bidding. To control illegal drugs we'd have to violate the letter and spirit of the 'illegal search and seizure' amendment (or rescind it) but that's another subject.

Njorl -

Regarding the "slaves" that the US imported in 2005, are you counting only illegal immigrants, or also legal immigrants? Either way, you seem to be ignoring the fact that those people are choosing to come, and can choose to leave at any time. To call that slavery is demeaning the term.

Michael -

I'm glad that someone mentioned the effects of the Drug War on Mexico and Colombia.

Njorl has dropped his/her little turd and moved on.

"Njorl -

Regarding the "slaves" that the US imported in 2005, are you counting only illegal immigrants, or also legal immigrants? Either way, you seem to be ignoring the fact that those people are choosing to come, and can choose to leave at any time. To call that slavery is demeaning the term."

I was referring to a combination of both, though only a very small subset. They are not free to leave. They are held in bondage of various sorts, even including actual physical restraint.

http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/

Just to be clear to those who drool at the chance to call me an anti-American Bush-hater, this is not just an American problem, and the Bush administration has probably done more about the problem than any since Lincoln.

I was merely pointing out that the topic is not "silly".

Forgot a link to US estimate of numbers:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/2005/pg5l.html

So crack is 120mph with a blindfold? I saw a report recently on a drug forum wherein certain experiments concerning such substances as 4-aco-dipt (driving a newspaper taxi from here to the edge of town at 105mph) were "performed on a closed course by trained professionals". The current laws discourage such closed courses - note in particular the RAVE bill.

Comments are Closed.