Words to live by...
"How beautiful it is to do nothing, and to rest afterward."
[Spanish Proverb]
(The right to looseness has been officially given)
"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders," wrote Ludwig von Mises, "no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle."
Apparently, the crossword puzzle that disappeared from the blog, came back.
I came across an opinion piece about drug legalization by Charles Lane at the Washington Post the other day. I am teased with such things on a daily basis because I elected to have the Post send me daily updates. I read the ones with interesting, attention-grabbing, headlines. And then I read (and often participate in) the comments which follow the op-ed.
The bulk of most comments in these stories/articles in the Post (and, of course, the NY Times, the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, et al) are written by liberal minded people. People on the Left, so to speak. That is to be expected. They are often written by people who haven't thought out their positions fully but who tend to parrot trendy terms and ideas (for the fair-minded, this also happens in the more conservative venues but by those on the Right).
Let's take the article referenced above...
I smoked pot beginning in the the late 60's and for many years afterward. I also used a number of other illegal drugs during that period... even dealing them a time or two. I may not be an expert but I believe I have a perspective that many citizens do not. And, of course, I think that perspective is important to the public debate.
Let's look at one comment to the article:
The one thing that is absolutly [SIC] clear is that, while full legalization of all drugs is not a good idea, putting people in prison for using them is also not good. We need to shift focus to harm reduction, the whole idea of illegal drugs whose use can wreck lives and get people sent to prison is idiotic.
People in peru [SIC] have chewed coca leaves for centuries with very few side effects, making drugs illegal leads inexorably to making them stronger and more lethal.
So I don 't think crystal meth should be legal, except of course the drugs taken from it like Adderal if memory serves. But I don't think you should go to prison for using it either, the sentence should always be some form of community service or restitution, things that stand a chance at reforming people instead of discarding them into the prison system.
The above is a fine example of what I call "biased thinking." I took issue, at first, with the statement about people in Peru and coca leaves. This is essentially true, though there were more than just Peruvians chewing those leaves. And I think the writer meant "social side effects." It was a way for the natives living and working at high altitudes in the Andes to deal with the problems of working efficiently at high altitudes. It was probably encouraged by the "governments" of those peoples in order to keep them happy and productive so they could support those governments (kings, "royal" families, etc.).
But the author of the comment then wanders off into his biased (and wrong) assumption that the prohibition of this substance caused it to become a problem. That's untrue , as history reveals. What actually happened was that the Europeans discovered the plant when they invaded the New World (the Americas), eventually (after about 250 years) began to examine it and exploit it. Out of that experimentation came Cocaine. And it was legal and remained so for many years... sold over the counter... for its analgesic properties.
At one time, Cocaine was even used as a treatment for Morphine addiction (Morphine was also legal at the time and used in a wide variety of OTC medications). Heroin was developed later and also used in the treatment of Morphine addiction, ironically. In other words, the stronger versions were developed during the licit periods of these drugs, not during the prohibition of them. Essentially, the prohibitions were a reaction to the problems that arose from the widespread legal use of them.
My problem with legalization of drugs is not the moral one (I have few morals myself), it's logistic. Let's take marijuana, for an example... Virtually anyone can grow their own. I have... many times. It's truly a weed and it will grow just about anywhere. Even in apartments in the winter. All you need do is to protect the plant from extremes of temperature, water it regularly, and trim it from time to time (this last quite an enjoyable and relaxing endeavor). Since it can be grown easily (and from a seed), you cannot prevent its proliferation and, therefore, you cannot effectively control its production and distribution. And that means taxation will be a problem. Why would I want to pay a high (no pun intended) price from a licensed distributor that would be taxed (heavily, as alcohol is), adding to that cost when I could... with a little patience and minimal effort... grow plenty for my personal use? One plant could easily supply enough for me and a few others and a few plants can be grown in a small space. Sure, it wouldn't be the high-powered stuff you have been hearing about (though I think that is more myth than true and I don't wish, at this time, to reveal how I know that) but it would be adequate for most purposes.
Remember, laws will always be broken. They only function as long as people, in general, obey them. No law, as no system, is perfect... all have flaws which can be exploited.
Once again, I settled into that recliner... that soft recliner so comfy... and I realized that I have no post for this morning. I am watching an analysis of the Battle of the Bulge on the Military History Channel. I am a sucker for anything WWII related. It is an amazing story. Not just the Battle of the Bulge but the entire war, in both theaters, and the lead up to it; the decade between 1930-1940, the geo-politics, the madness of nations, the struggle that would ultimately destroy the existing empires and create new ones.
If I were to suddenly find myself back in time, to when I was 19, and knew what I know now... I would go to college and I would major in History and then my post-grad would be about 1930-1945. It is of utter fascination to me.
There are interesting periods throughout the history of mankind but none seem to intrigue nearly as much as the one I described; that 15 years is one I just missed and one which so involved and so impacted events during my life.
And, sadly, few people of my generation seem anywhere near as interested as I am.
I was sitting in my usual place, a recliner facing the TV, when it dawned on me that I had not yet authored a post for the blog. This is not all that unusual... I often forget. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and scramble to string a few words together for that day's post. But not this time... this time the realization of the lack came to me last evening after settling into that recliner after returning from our weekly dinner with friends. Yes, we do have friends. Actually, Faye has them and they are willing to tolerate me for an hour or so.
In any case, I was (obviously) watching the TV... in "real time"... which means I could not fast forward through the commercials. One of them starts with a guy saying, "I have low testosterone. There, I said it." While I am wondering why that is such a big deal, he goes on to talk about how it can affect various things in his life. As I am thinking... "I really don't care about your testosterone levels" I began to muse...
It seems like some researcher for some pharmaceutical company either develops a medication or discovers one that already exists for the treatment of some condition can also treat some other condition and the company then markets it heavily. Soon, other pharmaceutical companies develop their own versions and they start marketing their versions of the same medication and, within a few days millions of people are being urged to ask their doctors about some possible condition they might have (but probably don't) and insisting he (or she... let's not be sexist now) prescribe this new wonder drug.
They have a name for what these companies are trying to turn us into.... hypochondriacs. I don't need the urging, thank you, I can do that on my own easily enough.
It's not difficult to be a cynic, it just takes a lack of trust coupled with a dash of pragmatism and flavored a bit with skepticism. Being pessimistic helps, though I do not think it's mandatory. It's even easier if it runs in the family. My father was a cynic. My mother, on the other hand, was an optimist and also very trusting.
My natural tendency toward cynicism was greatly enhanced by the existence of an older brother. Over the years, he made sure to destroy any optimism I might try to nurture. I didn't have a prayer, as they say, of believing anything is what it appears to be if that appearance was in any way positive.
My mother tried very hard to infuse me with optimism and hope. It was a waste of time; genetics and family dynamics being what they were.
One of the things a cynic like myself believes in is agendas. Not our own, of course, but others'. I firmly believe that 99.99% of people act in their own best interests. If that helps someone, they are happy to take credit but the primary motivation is self interest. Now, before you start thinking of Mother Teresa and the various saints of history, remember that you can probably count them all without removing more than your shoes.
I would like to take a stab at analyzing the case of Michael Dunn, the killer of a black teenager in Jacksonville, FL. It is a story with which you may be familiar (it was, after all, a case the news media was intensely interested in for at least its ability to draw attention and so it was seemingly everywhere).
Let me recap the case as best I can:
Michael Dunn stopped at a convenience store in Jacksonville with his girlfriend to pick up some things on their way to their hotel after attending his (Dunn's) son's wedding. He pulled up next to a car with three teens in it (a fourth teen had gone into the store), loud music was playing in the car. Loud enough to be heard well away from the car. According to one report:
"Both Thompson and Brunson (two teens who were in the car with the victim) testified that the music playing in the Durango was loud enough that the car shook with the bass."
I am fairly sure you've experienced similar situations. I know I have. But this incident turned deadly for one of the teens. It wasn't just the music volume that triggered the shooting, it was more. And there are some things I would like to know that I cannot find reported anywhere. Was the window (where the victim, Jordan Davis, was sitting in the back seat) down or up, for example? Why is that important? Because the teens who testified said there was an exchange of angry words between Dunn and Davis just before the shots rang out. That implies the window was down.
In any case, the exchange of angry words was over the volume of the music. Dunn complained, Tevin Thompson (one of the passengers in the teens' car) turned it down. But Thompson turned it back up when Davis said something to the effect (as testified to by Thompson) of, "F**k that, n*****r, turn it back up." And Thompson did.
Dunn claimed in his defense that he saw the barrel of a gun* and that is when he reached over, got his handgun (a semi-automatic) from the glove compartment, cocked it by pulling the slide back and releasing it, and began firing.
No one should lose his life over loud music. But (and here's where I am speculating) why did Davis feel he had to respond by having the music turned back up? Why couldn't he let it slide and leave it turned down? Perhaps he felt "dissed" and, perhaps, so did Dunn when the music volume went back up.
Neither treated the other with any respect at all.Each antagonized the other, each thought (apparently) he was the more important person. Shots ring out, a young man dies.
All because two people couldn't be civil.
* I suspect, but do not know, that what Dunn saw was part of a pipe. Why do I say that? Because I carried one in my car as a teen... one end wrapped with friction tape for gripping securely, the other bare. A pipe could easily be mistaken for a gun barrel. Speculating again; Davis could have picked up the pipe to imply a threat to Dunn.
