Quotulatiousness

September 14, 2012

The Bob Dylan interview within the Bob Dylan interview

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:53

I haven’t read Rolling Stone for decades, so I don’t know if this interview is typical of their house style these days:

Dylan talks about his new album, a bit about his apparent belief that the soul of a dead Hell’s Angel named Bobby Zimmerman (Dylan’s own birth name) took over his body in the 1960s (really, and I can’t explain it either), Dylan’s annoyance with people who attack him for using lines from other poets in his songs, and many other interesting things.

But around 10 percent of the interview is dedicated to a bizarre performance from interlocutor Mikal Gilmore seeming desperate to get Bob Dylan to say that he thinks criticism of Barack Obama is based on racism, say he voted for Obama, or say he really likes Obama.

Dylan leads into it with an impassioned and intelligent discussion of how the stain of slavery shapes this nation. “This country is just too fucked up about color….People at each others throats because they are of a different color. It’s the height of insanity, and it will hold any nation back — or any neighborhood back….It’s a country founded on the backs of slaves….If slavery had been given up in a more peaceful way, America would be far ahead today.”

This gives Gilmore his hook: didn’t Obama change all that? And isn’t it so that people who don’t like him don’t like him because of race? Gilmore takes five different swings at getting Dylan to agree. Some of Dylan’s responses: “They did the same thing to Bush, didn’t they? They did the same thing to Clinton, too, and Jimmy Carter before that….Eisenhower was accused of being un-American. And wasn’t Nixon a socialist? Look what he did in China. They’ll say bad things about the next guy too.” On Gilmore’s fourth attempt, Dylan just resorts to: “Do you want me to repeat what I just said, word for word? What are you talking about? People loved the guy when he was elected. So what are we talking about? People changing their minds?”

August 27, 2012

US presidential election: one from column A or one from column B

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:00

Jesse Kline explains the lack of excitement among independent voters (those not formally registered as Democrats or Republicans) — they really aren’t being offered much of a choice between the top two candidates:

It would, of course, be unfair to blame Obama for a mess that has been created over decades by both political parties. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush presided over massive spending increases; Clinton and Bush II also increased regulation; while Congress has substantially increased the of new laws it passes on an annual basis since the early 1980s.

But Obama’s record in his first term is still dismal. For all his talk about creating jobs and improving the economy, Obama’s policies have only served to increase the cost of doing business and divert money from productive sectors of the economy to increase government spending. The only question is whether the Republicans can fix the fiscal mess they helped create.

To his credit, Mitt Romney has at least been talking about the regulatory burden the American economy faces. Paul Ryan is, likewise, one of the few politicians talking about entitlement reform.

But Romney has explicitly stated he will not use the Ryan budget as a template for his own economic policies — which he has left incredibly vague. And even the Ryan budget does little to cut real spending in the short term, partially because it does not cut military spending, which is arguably as big an issue as entitlement spending.

Not only are policy makers stuck in a catch-22 over how to prevent the economy from falling back into recession while staving off a looming debt crisis, the American people are also facing a similar conundrum in choosing the next president: Neither party has a track record to suggest it is willing and able to address the country’s serious economic issues, and neither is willing to work co-operatively in a political environment that is entrenched along partisan and ideological lines.

In spite of the way the term is hurled around, the common accusation of “racism” for anyone who doesn’t support Barack Obama has a slight kernel of truth about it: on the policy side, Obama and Romney are not very far apart at all. The two men are much more similar than different … except for race.

July 20, 2012

QotD: “… those maple syrup-swilling moose jockeys up north”

Filed under: Cancon, Humour, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:04

Canada’s has always been like the U.S.’s much less successful younger brother. We’re this rich businessman and adventurer who has been on the cover of every magazine, while Canada is going to make manager at McDonald’s any day now and has gotten a speaking role in the community theater’s production of Beauty and the Beast and we’re really proud of him.

Except now Canadians are richer than us.

[. . .]

Yep, we’re now being outpaced by those maple syrup-swilling moose jockeys up north. Thanks Obama!

Frank J. Fleming, “Losing to Canada”, IMAO, 2012-07-19

July 18, 2012

The “you didn’t build it” meme, inter-personal relations style

Filed under: Economics, Government, Humour, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:02

An amusing extension of President Obama’s “you didn’t build it” claim:

You Got Laid Last Night? That’s Nice, But . . .

somebody else made that happen. Sport.

You met this chick on the Internet, which DARPA invented, with money taken from taxpayers by the government, which printed the money after giving the concession to log national forests to produce the paper, lands stolen from the Indians by the government, aided by soldiers who were paid for with taxes paid by taxpayers through the government. The logging was opposed by ineffectual lawyers hired by environmentalist organizations which received grants from the government, who nevertheless received their legal fees from environmental agencies who still paid themselves liberal salaries underwritten by taxpayers, and which donate to liberal PACs.

The beer you plied her with was paid for with money paid to you by a corporation for whom you used to work, before you conspired to get fired to collect your 99 because you were tired of taking it from The Man, which is permitted to exist by the government, which taxes both its income and yours. On the way to meet your date, you withdrew money for the date at an ATM which charged you a $2 convenience fee, though it operates on a system paid for by taxpayers to the government. The government used taxpayer money to bail out the bank in question when its mortgage investments went bust-oh! largely because the government, in concert with government-subsidized political agencies and government lawyers, threatened the banks, who paid their executives lavishly for accepting the ridiculous loan standards demanded by the government-subsidized political agencies and government lawyers who performed their agitation on the taxpayer dime. Once again, the lawyers and the non-profit executives were well remunerated, and turned around to send some of their salaries to legislators who would vote them more grants and loans, and who were further rewarded by well-compensated positions at those institutions after they were forced to resign after scandals for which other people might have been sent to prison.

If you somehow missed the start of the “you didn’t build it” meme, try here.

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord.

July 17, 2012

The declaration of dependence

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:51

President Obama goes the extra mile to portray every successful person as being just a pawn in the hands of vast, impersonal forces of destiny:

Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

The “Leader of the Free World”, folks! Let’s give him a hand! (Applause.)

Elizabeth Warren may have said it first in this election campaign, but nobody will top Barack Obama’s reworking of her theme.

(more…)

July 16, 2012

Mitt Romney and the NAACP

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:46

Steve Chapman provides a bit of rare praise for Mitt Romney after his speech to the NAACP:

It may have been a bit surprising when the NAACP held its national convention and Mitt Romney showed up. Romney, as comedian Reggie Brown put it, is “what people who hate white people think of when they think of white people.” He’s likely to do about as well among black voters as he is among Wiccans.

But there he was, taking precious campaign time in a vain and even humiliating search for votes. Naive folly or an excess of ambition on his part? Not quite.

Candidates normally put a high priority on assuring enthusiastic receptions and supportive audiences. Campaign managers typically prefer to avoid the risk of making the boss look unpopular. Sometimes, however, that risk is not a bug but a feature.

[. . .]

By presenting himself to the nation’s premier civil rights group, Romney signaled his aversion to bigotry without embracing any policies favored by the Congressional Black Caucus. With a college-educated suburban woman who dislikes Rush Limbaugh, say, the gesture could only help his cause.

But things may have worked out even better than that. By condemning Obamacare, Romney offered doubters a rare sighting of the Romney backbone. By reaping a chorus of boos, he strengthened his standing among hard-line conservatives who regard the NAACP as anathema. It was political jiu-jitsu, turning a weakness to his advantage.

While Romney was confronting his foes, Obama was avoiding his friends. Though he has spoken at past conventions, including last year’s, the president sent Joe Biden in his stead. Press secretary Jay Carney cited scheduling conflicts and said cryptically that his boss was busy working to help “all Americans.”

The nation’s most prominent black group convenes, and a brother can’t be bothered? Maybe this is what actor Morgan Freeman was getting at the other day when he volunteered, “He’s not America’s first black president; he’s America’s first mixed-race president.”

July 11, 2012

Obama’s tax proposal being misreported by all major media outlets

Filed under: Government, Media, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:48

How so? Dan Amira explains:

Obama is not proposing that families making up to $250,000 a year keep their tax cuts while families making more than that don’t. He’s proposing that every family keep their tax cuts on their first $250,000 of taxable income (which is not the same as “income” or “earnings,” by the way).

That includes families with taxable income of $260,000, $1 million, $5 billion, $3 trillion, or whatever Jay-Z and Beyonce make in a year. Everyone would continue to pay a lower tax rate on their first $250,000 of taxable income under Obama’s plan. To report that Obama only wants to maintain tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 is simply false.

[. . .]

Normally, a president would want to publicize that he’s trying to cut taxes for everyone in the country. But Obama actually has an incentive this time to downplay the number of Americans who would benefit from his tax plan. His proposal is, at its heart, a political maneuver meant to force Mitt Romney to defend tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s more effective, then, for it to be seen as a cut solely for the middle class. The reality is that Obama’s proposal would also keep Warren Buffett’s taxes lower, if only a little bit.

H/T to Iowahawk for the link.

July 9, 2012

Bush vs Obama: degrees of imperialism

Filed under: Government, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:07

Jacob Sullum responds to a Wall Street Journal editorial on whether Obama’s presidency has been more “imperial” than that of George W. Bush:

The first bogus distinction has to do with drug policy. Strassel claims “Obama disagrees with federal law, which criminalizes the use of medical marijuana.” If so, why has the Obama administration steadfastly refused to reclassify marijuana so it can legally be used as a medicine, a power it has under the Controlled Substances Act? Instead it absurdly insists that marijuana has no medical applications, cannot be used safely, and poses a bigger abuse risk than cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamine. Notwithstanding the fact that Obama opposes loosening the federal ban on marijuana, Strassel says Congress’ refusal to do so has led the president to “instruct…his Justice Department not to prosecute transgressors.” This will come as news to the hundreds of medical marijuana suppliers shut down by federal raids or threats of prosecution and forfeiture since Obama took office. By some measures (frequency of raids, for example), Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana has been more aggressive than Bush’s, and both administrations have in practice taken essentially the same approach, going after growers and sellers rather than individual patients. That policy does not reflect tolerance or compassion so much as the feds’ customary allocation of resources: The DEA, which accounts for less than 1 percent of marijuana arrests, has never shown much interest in minor possession cases.

The second bogus distinction between Obama and Bush has to do with “auto bailouts,” one of the examples Strassel (correctly) cites to illustrate Obama’s power grabs. She seems to have forgotten that it was Bush who initiated the illegal use of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue American car manufacturers from their own mistakes (a policy that Obama welcomed as a senator and expanded as president). That episode followed precisely the pattern that Strassel is decrying: The Bush administration unsuccessfully sought congressional approval for bailing out car companies, then did it anyway. This example also undermines Strassel’s mitigation of Bush’s abuses: She incorrectly states that “his aggressive reading of executive authority was limited to the area where presidents are at their core power — the commander-in-chief function.”

July 7, 2012

Andrew Coyne on the high school relationship that is Canada and the USA

Filed under: Cancon, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:05

I have to admit that I never saw the diplomatic and trade relationship between the two countries in quite this way before:

As veteran diplomats and foreign policy specialists trade blows over who is to blame for the crisis in Canada-U.S. relations — How Obama Lost Canada; How Obama Won Canada; Obama Didn’t Lose Canada; Maybe Canada Lost Obama, Ever Think of That? — thoughtful observers on both sides of the border are concerned that important nuances in the debate are being overlooked.

While managing a bilateral relationship is never easy, especially one as complex and multi-faceted as that between Canada and the U.S., sources close to the Canadian government stress that America totally did not break up with Canada, Canada broke up with it first. They point to the Obama administration’s politically motivated decision to block approval of the Keystone XL pipeline extension as an important irritant in the relationship, adding that America has been avoiding Canada in the halls for weeks.

On the other hand, long-time State Department watchers suggest Canada may have erred in focusing its diplomatic efforts too intently on the administration, in a capital in which power is increasingly dispersed, and besides Canada didn’t even look at America in the library even though they were like studying at the same table.

Seeking to downplay tensions, they note that today’s disputes pale in comparison to the controversies that have sometimes roiled relations between the two countries in the past, such as over Vietnam or that thing at the party last year after grad.

Nonetheless, it is clear that on a number of issues there is a gathering sense of grievance on the Canadian side, a feeling that Canada’s concerns are not taken seriously in official Washington. Sources in the department of Foreign Affairs, who did not want to be named because they had English Lit with America right after lunch, cited a long list of perceived slights, from the Buy America provisions in the stimulus bill to the failure to support Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council to the lack of recognition of Canada’s contribution to the Afghanistan mission. Would it have killed America, these sources ask, just to call?

In response, Canada has moved to more aggressively assert its interests, for example warning it might cultivate China and other export markets for its crude oil, scaling back its commitment to Afghanistan and changing its Facebook status to “it’s complicated.”

He’s talked some sense into me: no longer will I deny that the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States should be described in terms of “a sexual chemistry you could cut with a knife”.

July 6, 2012

Maybe Obama has scaled back the War on Drugs

Filed under: Government, Law, Military, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:45

At least, that’s the highly charitable conclusion reached by some supportive media folks. Jacob Sullum explains how they came up with this revelation:

One-upping GQ‘s Marc Ambinder, who recently predicted that Barack Obama “will pivot to the drug war” in his second term if he is re-elected, The Daily Beast‘s James Higdon claims the president already has scaled back the crusade to stop Americans from altering their consciousness in politically disfavored ways. Higdon’s evidence: less money in the administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget for marijuana-spotting helicopters. Seriously:

    Until now, the DEA and state law enforcement could count on the National Guard to fly hundreds of helicopter hours over national forests and other public land, where growers became active following the passage of property-seizure laws in the Reagan years—but the FY13 budget changes that.

    The 50-percent cut is not being apportioned evenly across the states — it’s a two-thirds cut in Oregon and a 70-percent cut in Kentucky, while the Southern border states are receiving less severe reductions in funding. It’s essentially a diversion of Defense Department assets away from the interior American marijuana fields to where the national-security risk is greatest: along our Southern border.

Higdon sees this budgetary rejiggering, which by his own admission will have no impact on the amount of marijuana supplied to or consumed by Americans, as a landmark on “the road map to pot decriminalization.”

I guess you need to pretend there’s a pony somewhere when you’re digging through that much horse shit.

July 2, 2012

Here’s what to expect to pay in Obamacare penalty tax

Filed under: Government, Health, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:10

There are no easy answers in figuring out in advance exactly what taxes will apply to any given person, but Henry Blodget at Business Insider outlines what to expect in general terms:

  • The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
  • The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
  • The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
  • No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
  • The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you’re exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula…
  • The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
  • However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a “Bronze” heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state “exchanges” that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

Update: In spite of all the agonized wailing from the Republicans (especially the Tea Party folks), Steve Chapman is determined to find the limited government silver lining in the Obamacare decision:

While it was upholding the mandate, the court was striking down an equally important part of the law: the requirement that states greatly expand Medicaid coverage, at a cost of about $1 trillion between 2014 and 2022. The administration sought to force states to go along by threatening to take away all their Medicaid funds — not just those provided for the expansion. But Roberts and Co. said no.

Does it matter? You bet. It’s the first time the court has ever said Washington went too far in the conditions it places on money sent to state governments. The ruling will give states more latitude to make their own decisions in all sorts of areas.

The case also registered a victory for the notion that judges should apply the Constitution in an impartial way rather than simply impose their policy preferences. George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, writing on the conservative-libertarian blog The Volokh Conspiracy, said the overall decision was “a largely conservative opinion that just happens to get to a liberal result.”

Equally significant is that it took a worse health care option off the table. The irony of the challenge is that if Obamacare had been struck down, supporters of universal health coverage would have been left with no good option but a “single-payer” system, also known as “Medicare for all” — which is undoubtedly constitutional.

Whatever the flaws of Obamacare, it at least builds on the existing system of private insurance. Vermont’s self-proclaimed socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, used the court’s decision to renew his call for a single-payer system. But for him, the verdict was the worst thing that could have happened.

For anyone even slightly open to evidence, letting Obamacare take effect will provide an illuminating experiment in how to afford the miracles of the American medical system to more people, including many in dire need. It may be a failure, or it may be a success. But it will not be uninformative.

July 1, 2012

Reason.tv: 3 Big Takeaways From Obamacare Decision

Filed under: Government, Health, Law, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:59

Here are the three most important things you need to know in the wake of the Supeme Court’s decision on The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare:

1. Government is still unlimited.
2. Mitt Romney is still lame.
3. Health care costs will still soar.

For more details, go to http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/3-essential-takeaways-from-the-obamacare

June 26, 2012

Sacrificing relations with your top trading partner for domestic political reasons

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:59

In Foreign Affairs, Derek H. Burney and Fen Osler Hampson outline the sad state of the trading relationship between Canada and the United States:

Permitting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline should have been an easy diplomatic and economic decision for U.S. President Barack Obama. The completed project would have shipped more than 700,000 barrels a day of Albertan oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast, generated tens of thousands of jobs for U.S. workers, and met the needs of refineries in Texas that are desperately seeking oil from Canada, a more reliable supplier than Venezuela or countries in the Middle East. The project posed little risk to the landscape it traversed. But instead of acting on economic logic, the Obama administration caved to environmental activists in November 2011, postponing until 2013 the decision on whether to allow the pipeline.

Obama’s choice marked a triumph of campaign posturing over pragmatism and diplomacy, and it brought U.S.-Canadian relations to their lowest point in decades. It was hardly the first time that the administration has fumbled issues with Ottawa. Although relations have been civil, they have rarely been productive. Whether on trade, the environment, or Canada’s shared contribution in places such as Afghanistan, time and again the United States has jilted its northern neighbor. If the pattern of neglect continues, Ottawa will get less interested in cooperating with Washington. Already, Canada has reacted by turning elsewhere — namely, toward Asia — for more reliable economic partners.

[. . .]

In Afghanistan, Canada is now rapidly scaling back its substantial commitment to the military mission, thanks to the United States’ increasingly erratic, if not embarrassing, direction. Canada has spent billions on the war and lost over 150 soldiers, proportionately more than any other ally, but has received no tangible dividend for its support on bilateral or multilateral issues of concern to it. Canada also participated in NATO’s mission in Libya — where a Canadian, Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, commanded military operations. Canada has no tangible interests of any kind in Afghanistan or Libya. Its participation in those countries, proportionately larger than any other ally, was intended primarily to strengthen the partnership with the United States on the theory that solid multilateral commitments would engender more productive bilateral relations. That proved not to be the case.

Update: Matt Gurney wonders if the palpable lack of reaction by Canadians to the laundry list of “slights” might possibly indicate that Canada is finally “growing up”:

You can’t say the essay is wrong. From Keystone XL to Buy America provisions in the stimulus packages developed by Congress, the U.S. has found occasion over the last few years to irritate Canada. But notably absent has been the kind of heated Canadian rhetoric you’d hear as recently as the Paul Martin era during the softwood lumber dispute. Nor does the Canadian public seem to be demonstrating much of the reflexive anti-Americanism that has always been a strange part of our national character.

We’ve long insisted that the U.S. treat us as a separate and sovereign country, and yet react with wounded outrage when they treat us as a separate country. Go figure. But given that Burney and his co-author are right, and America has repeatedly slighted Canada … and if we can agree that Canadians don’t seem particularly freaked out about it … good Lord, could it be that Canadians are, gulp, growing up?

June 23, 2012

Autobiography as fiction, lightly dusted with personal history

Filed under: Books, Government, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:03

Mark Steyn on America’s first Invented-American president:

Courtesy of David Maraniss’ new book, we now know that yet another key prop of Barack Obama’s identity is false: His Kenyan grandfather was not brutally tortured or even non-brutally detained by his British colonial masters. The composite gram’pa joins an ever-swelling cast of characters from Barack’s “memoir” who, to put it discreetly, differ somewhat in reality from their bit parts in the grand Obama narrative. The best friend at school portrayed in Obama’s autobiography as “a symbol of young blackness” was, in fact, half Japanese, and not a close friend. The white girlfriend he took to an off-Broadway play that prompted an angry post-show exchange about race never saw the play, dated Obama in an entirely different time zone, and had no such world-historically significant conversation with him. His Indonesian step-grandfather, supposedly killed by Dutch soldiers during his people’s valiant struggle against colonialism, met his actual demise when he “fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes.”

David Maraniss is no right-winger, and can’t understand why boorish nonliterary types have seized on his book as evidence that the president of the United States is a Grade A phony. “It is a legitimate question about where the line is in memoir,” he told Soledad O’Brien on CNN. My Oxford dictionary defines “memoir” as “an historical account or biography written from personal knowledge.” And if Obama doesn’t have “personal knowledge” of his tortured grandfather, war-hero step-grandfather and racially obsessed theater-buff girlfriend, who does? But in recent years, the Left has turned the fake memoir into one of the most prestigious literary genres: Oprah’s Book Club recommended James Frey’s “A Million Little Pieces,” hailed by Bret Easton Ellis as a “heartbreaking memoir” of “poetic honesty,” but subsequently revealed to be heavy on the “poetic” and rather light on the “honesty.” The “heartbreaking memoir” of a drug-addled street punk who got tossed in the slammer after brawling with cops while high on crack with his narco-hooker girlfriend proved to be the work of some suburban Pat Boone type with a couple of parking tickets. (I exaggerate, but not as much as he did.)

[. . .]

In an inspired line of argument, Ben Smith of the website BuzzFeed suggests that the controversy over “Dreams From My Father” is the fault of conservatives who have “taken the self-portrait at face value.” We are so unlettered and hicky that we think a memoir is about stuff that actually happened rather than a literary jeu d’esprit playing with nuances of notions of assumptions of preconceptions of concoctions of invented baloney. And so we regard the first member of the Invented-American community to make it to the White House as a kinda weird development rather than an encouraging sign of how a new post-racial, post-gender, post-modern America is moving beyond the old straitjackets of black and white, male and female, gay and straight, real and hallucinatory.

June 21, 2012

Addressing society’s hypocrisy on drugs

Filed under: Britain, Health, Law, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:13

There’s apparently a call in Britain for the police to be given discretionary powers in certain cases where they could push civil rather than criminal penalties for drug offences. A better solution would be to fix the massive disconnect between the law and reality:

‘Ease drug penalties on the young,” a government adviser has urged. And of course, Professor Les Iversen, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, is absolutely right. After all, if every young man who had dabbled with drugs had felt the fullest penalty of the law, then David Cameron would not be prime minister nor Barack Obama US president.

But in my view, Les Iversen doesn’t go nearly far enough. He talks of police being granted the discretion as to whether to press for civil rather than criminal penalties in certain drugs cases. This, however, is a fudge that doesn’t address the real issue. If our drugs laws are antiquated, expensive, inconsistent, socially damaging, draconian and counterproductive — and they are — then the solution is not to give the police more leeway to turn a blind eye. The solution is to change the laws.

[. . .]

What’s the thing I’m scared of most about my children and drugs? Not the drugs themselves, that’s for sure. The way we class drugs bears almost no relation to their relative degrees of harmfulness, as Professor David Nutt, the former government drugs adviser and Cambridge-educated neuropsychopharmacologist, made himself extremely unpopular by explaining. Alcohol and tobacco, Nutt infamously pointed out, are more dangerous than LSD; Ecstasy is safer than horse riding.

No, what worries me far more about my kids and drugs is the grubby illegality of that culture: the fact that whoever supplies them will, by definition, come from the criminal underworld; the fact that, there being no consumer protection or quality control, their drugs could be cut with any quantity of rubbish; the fact that they risk being imprisoned and having their futures blighted for the essentially victimless crime of seeking an altered state.

There are some authoritarian types, I know, who reading this will say: “And serve them bloody right!” It was a similar warped mentality that, at the height of Prohibition, led the US government to poison the nation’s supply of industrial alcohol (used to make moonshine) with a contaminant called Formula No 5. As Christopher Snowdon notes in his book The Art of Suppression, this resulted in as many as 10,000 needless deaths.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress