Democrats will Condone any Bad Behavior if it advances their Power

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 4th, 2014

Week in Review

The government has long warned us not to eat or drink things that are bad for us.  They banned Saccharin after mega doses in rats caused cancer.  They then determined that a rat’s physiology is different from humans.  And removed their ban.  They banned the use of Alar (used in apples and other fruits to provide a better harvest) when mega doses proved to be carcinogenic.  The consumption of healthy apples fell.  They told us not to eat eggs as they had cholesterol.  Even though no study showed egg cholesterol was bad for you.  So people quit eating eggs.  And many lost an excellent source of protein.  And it turned out saturated fats play a larger role in our cholesterol levels.  And that eating eggs really doesn’t affect our cholesterol levels.  So we’re eating eggs again.  Because they are good for you.

Mayor Bloomberg wanted to make large sugary beverages illegal in New York.  There have been bans on trans-fats.  They have tried to take toys out of McDonald’s Happy Meals to make them less attractive to children.  And let’s not forget the war on smoking.  They have put pictures of diseased lungs on the packaging to get us to quit.  They have made it illegal to smoke a cigarette pretty much everywhere to protect others from second-hand smoke (though no studies exist showing that there is even a risk due to second hand smoke just as there was no study showing egg cholesterol was bad for you).  They have even discussed bans on third-hand smoke (the ashtray smell you leave behind after smoking).

Government is regulating our lives to save us from ourselves.  Because we engage in behavior too risky for our own good.  Except for two behaviors.  Drugs.  As Colorado has decriminalized marijuana (without any regard to our diseased lungs, second-hand smoke or third-hand smoke).  And sex.  As they give out free birth-control to encourage our young people to have as much sex as they so desire.  And provide access to abortion when that fails.  Despite the slew of venereal diseases all that sex has given our young people.  Including AIDS (see A Resisted Pill to Prevent H.I.V. by DAVID TULLER posted 12/30/2013 on The New York Times).

Over a cup of tea at a downtown Starbucks, Michael Rubio recalled how four friends became H.I.V. positive through unprotected sex, all within a year…

The very existence of that option represents a startling turn in the too-long history of the AIDS epidemic. Many health experts hoped that the medication — Truvada, a combination of two antiviral drugs that has been used to treat H.I.V. since 2004 — would be exuberantly embraced by H.I.V.-negative gay men. Instead, Truvada has been slow to catch on as an H.I.V. preventive in the 18 months since the strategy’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration. In some quarters, the idea that healthy gay men should take a medication to prevent infection — an approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP — has met with hostility or indifference…

For 30 years, public health officials have aggressively promoted condom use during every sexual encounter as the only effective method, apart from abstinence, for preventing H.I.V. transmission. Still, 50,000 new infections are occurring annually in the United States; sexual transmission between men accounts for more than half of them, and a disproportionate number among African-Americans and other minorities.

Many experts hailed Truvada as an opportunity to reduce new infections among high-risk groups like young gay men, people in relationships with H.I.V.-positive partners, and prostitutes. The F.D.A. called for prescriptions to be accompanied by counseling, frequent H.I.V. testing, and continued promotion of safer sex, although research suggests that daily use of the pill alone confers close to full protection.

But a generational shift in attitudes toward H.I.V. among gay men may also be playing a role, some experts say. With advances in treatment, many younger men who did not experience the worst years of the epidemic are less fearful of the consequences of infection. Moreover, current medications can lower viral levels in H.I.V.-positive people to the point where the risk of transmission is negligible, further reducing the perceived need for PrEP among H.I.V.-negative partners…

Certainly, “condom fatigue” among gay men is real. The proportion who reported unprotected anal sex in the previous year rose to 57 percent in 2011 from 48 percent in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obamacare will pay for AIDS and HIV treatment.  But will people with AIDS/HIV pay more for their Obamacare?  Probably not.  Smokers will pay more, though.  Despite it being easier to prevent AIDS/HIV than lung cancer from smoking.  For you can still have anal sex without being at risk for catching AIDS/HIV if you wear a condom.  But you can’t smoke without putting yourself at risk every time.  Because when you smoke you pull in that cancer-causing smoke into your lungs.  Yet as preventable as AIDS/HIV is 57% of gay men have unprotected sex.  Which you can’t define as anything but willful and dangerous behavior.

But the left has no harsh words for the gay community.  Unlike they do for smokers.  Why?  Because the gay community votes Democrat.  As do young people.  Who believe that 30% or more of the population is gay.  While a 2010 study by the Williams Institute put the number at 3.5%.  But the young believe that 3 out of every 10 people (instead of 3.5 out of 100) identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  And want to be progressive and enlightened and cool and so unlike their parents that they want to show their enlightened support for them.  Which is another reason why they vote Democrat.  In addition to the sex and drugs the Democrats encourage.

Until gay men wear condoms all of the time or abstain from willful and dangerous unprotected anal sex AIDS/HIV will spread.  (If these young gay men were in monogamous relationships they wouldn’t be spreading AIDS/HIV).  And it won’t be just in the gay community.  Thanks to bisexuals, intravenous drug users and prostitutes the disease will migrate to others who think they are being progressive and enlightened to have as much sex as the Democrats encourage them to have.  Guaranteeing a large voting block for the anti-parents (i.e., Democrats) come Election Day.  And they don’t care how many lives they destroy in the process.  But if you want to enjoy a cigarette or a big juicy burger look out.  They are coming after you and your reckless lifestyle.  Unless, of course, you’re smoking a marijuana cigarette.  And eating that big greasy burger afterward because you have the munchies.  Because there’s nothing wrong with that lifestyle.  Because you’re likely a Democrat voter.

The temperance movement took off in large part due to the STDs husbands brought home to their wives after drinking away their paychecks at the local saloon.  And then making bad decisions when drunk.  Like spending what money they didn’t spend on alcohol on prostitutes.  Bringing home syphilis to many an unsuspecting wife.  Who passed it on to their unborn children.  It was the progressives that try to put a stop to that with Prohibition.  Including women like Susan B. Anthony.  Now look at the progressives.  Who are a far cry from those who once wanted to protect women and children.  Who now champion some of the most dangerous behavior women and children can face.  Sex and drugs.  Just to win elections.  Something Susan B. Anthony would not likely approve of if she were alive today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Laws banning Alcohol and Drugs didn’t stop Alcohol Violence or Drug Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 31st, 2013

Politics 101

Prohibition Violence spilled onto the Streets where Gangsters shot up each other with Thompson Submachine Guns

Men have always drunk in this country.  A lot.  After the working day was over they went to their corner saloon.  And drank away their pay.  Getting inebriated.  And making a lot of bad decisions.  Such as drinking away their pay.  Getting into fights.  Engaging the services of prostitutes hanging out at the saloons.  Catching a venereal disease or two.  Taking them home to the wife.  Worse, some of these drunken men were beating their wives.

Alcohol violence was taking a toll on the American family.  In particular on the women in those American families.  This alcohol violence was creating a war on women.  These drunken men were beating their wives.  And inflicting them with venereal diseases.  Causing great harm to their wives.  And destroying their families.  They needed to do something.  And that something led to the temperance movement.  Which ended in Prohibition.  An outright ban on alcoholic beverages.

And it worked.  Alcohol violence on women committed by their husbands decreased.  As did the rate of venereal disease infections on married women.  As Prohibition shut down the local saloons.  And all the problems they caused.  But it didn’t stop everyone from drinking.  There was such a large demand despite Prohibition that others stepped in to meet that demand.  Organized crime.  Prohibition violence spilled onto the streets where gangsters shot up each other, and innocent bystanders, with Thompson submachine guns.  As the profitability of the illicit alcohol trade erupted in violent gang wars.  Allowing crime bosses like Al Capone to take over cities.  And corrupting their police forces.  Causing even more trouble than the original alcohol violence on married women.  So they repealed Prohibition.  And the people could drink once again.  As they always wanted to.

The Illicit Drug Trade picked up where Prohibition left off in terms of Gun Violence

The British were addicted to Chinese tea.  They couldn’t get enough of it.  Or other Chinese luxuries like silk and porcelain.  The only problem was that the Chinese didn’t want anything from Britain.  So as the Chinese goods flowed to Britain silver flowed from Britain to China to pay for their goods.  Causing a huge trade imbalance.  Which the British corrected with the opium grown in India.  And being that opium was addictive more and more Chinese were using opium.  Which reversed the net silver flow.  Allowing the British to enjoy their tea, silk and porcelain.  Which they traded Indian opium for.  Causing an addiction problem in China.  And a destruction of Chinese society.  That the Chinese responded to with the Opium Wars.

Drug addiction has destroyed many families.  And societies.  Throughout the world.  Which is why hard drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal in most countries.  For they are very addictive.  Drug addicts lose their jobs.  Their wives.  Girlfriends.  And families.  As they sink into addiction without a job they often turn to crime to pay for their habit.  Become thieves.  Or prostitutes.  Where they often suffer abuse.  End up in jail.  Or catch AIDS from sharing needles with other intravenous drug users.  Cocaine use spread in more affluent circles.  While crack cocaine devastated poorer circles.  Which is why most of the world has criminalized these drugs.  Despite this demand remains high.  Cocaine use has fallen in the West.  But only because some users have switched to methamphetamine.  Which is cheaper.  More powerful.  And longer lasting.

Like with alcohol someone stepped in to meet this demand.  Organized crime.  And boy did they unleash drug violence onto the world.  From the street gangs shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to control turf.  To the cartels higher up the distribution channels.  The illicit drug trade is big money.  Very big money.  Picking up where prohibition left off.  For it is the criminal element that truly benefits from banning anything.  The drug trade is so lucrative that it is now even funding al Qaeda.  Even though Islam strictly forbids the use of drugs.  But they have no problem taking a percent of the drug trade that flows from South America through Africa on its way to Europe.  Where it can destroy European societies.  Something al Qaeda has no problem with.

People already Breaking the Law will not be Stopped by another New Law

There is an epidemic of gun violence in the U.S.  Committed not by people who support and defend their Second Amendment right to own a gun.  For wanting to do that is not helped by shooting lots of innocent people.  In fact if one is prone to conspiracy theories one could say that the rise in gun violence is oddly coincidental to the Obama administration’s pursuit of gun control regulation.  Especially following Fast and Furious.  A program used by the Obama administration to try and stir up anti-gun sentiment.  Like that the current epidemic of gun violence is stirring up.  Which the conspiracy theorist could find a little too coincidental.   But I digress.

The people committing these acts of gun violence are some pretty disturbed people.  They have mental health issues.  Or are extremely angry about something.  Perhaps because they can’t get a job in the worst economic recovery in U.S. history.  Thanks to President Obama’s economic policies designed more for politics and social justice than actual job creation.  Who knows?  The only thing for certain is that this rise in gun violence corresponds with President Obama’s time in office.  For he didn’t campaign on the need for new gun control legislation.  But like his position on gay marriage he evolved to this position.  After witnessing a rise in gun violence during his time in office.

Whatever the cause is will new gun control legislation change anything?  Well, if we can learn anything from Prohibition and the War on Drugs, yes.  It will change things.  It will give organized crime another lucrative illicit trade.  But unlike alcohol and drugs their customers will not be people just trying to get a drink or a high.  It will be hardened criminals.  Who are shooting each other on the streets to defend their turf.  And at all levels of the illicit drug trade going right up to the cartels at the top.  So the criminals will have their guns.  And there will be new gang wars as criminal elements fight each other to control the gun trade.  Which may even increase the gun violence in places like Chicago.  Which is already one of the deadliest U.S. cities.  Despite having some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

So why do they have more gun deaths in Chicago than most cities?  Because there is a high demand for guns by the criminal element in Chicago.  Will a federal ban change that?  Will it put an end to gun violence?  Did it stop alcohol violence during Prohibition?  Does it stop drug violence now?  No.  A gun ban will not change what’s happening in Chicago.  For guns aren’t causing the gun deaths in Chicago.  It’s the people using the guns.  And people already breaking the law will not be stopped by another new law.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First the Obama Misery Tour, then on to Martha’s Vineyard with the other Millionaires and Billionaires

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 15th, 2011

Raising Taxes on the ‘Rich’ to Close the Deficit will put the Country into a Depression

Roll up, roll up for the misery tour.  Roll up, roll up for the misery tour.  The Obama Misery Tour is waiting to take you away.  Waiting to take you away (see Obama kicks off Midwest bus tour with harsh words on the economy by Zachary A. Goldfarb posted 8/15/2011 on The Washington Post).

Obama, who kicked off a three-day Midwest bus tour Monday focused on the economy, cited comments made by Republican presidential hopefuls at a GOP debate last week.

“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Neither did raising the deficit from $455 billion to $1.65 trillion, Mr. President.  In fact this spending was downright irresponsible.  Your administration spent an additional $1.195 trillion we didn’t have.  And you’re planning to spend more.  We have a deficit problem because we have a spending problem.  Not because people aren’t paying enough taxes.

“You’ve got to send a message to Washington that it’s time for the games to stop. It’s time to put country first,” Obama said, his voice rising. “Some folks in Congress … would rather see their opponents lose, than America win.”

Mr. President, you increased the deficit by 263%.  That is not good for the country.  In fact, one could say that you are the ‘some folks’ you refer to who would rather see their opponents lose than America win.

He called on Congress to pass measures to hire construction workers, a trio of trade bills, an overhaul of patent laws and new tax credits to spur new jobs for veterans.

You had supermajorities during your first two years in office.  You could have passed any legislation you wanted to spur new jobs.  Instead, you made your priority the passing of Obamacare.  Something that did not spur any jobs.  And only will increase the deficit. 

And hire construction workers?  Wasn’t your Keynesian stimulus bill supposed to do that?  Create some $800 billion in shovel-ready projects?  Of course that’s hard to do when 88% of that bill was pork and earmarks.  Sort of a Democrat wish list to satisfy some 40 years of wants and desires. 

Speaking about the national debt, Obama called for an overhaul of the tax code that would force the wealthy to pay more taxes and an overhaul of entitlement programs…

“I’d like to see the ultra-rich pay their fair share,” said…a nurse from Rochester. “He’s got to be a politician, but I’d like to see a bit more push.”

“I think he’s doing a good job. He inherited a very big deficit,” said…a financial planner from Rochester. “He and Michelle are the first residents of the White House to be familiar with both organic food and leftovers.”

The wealthy just aren’t wealthy enough to pay down the deficit.  If you crunch the numbers, and define anyone who earns $159,619 or more as wealthy, you’ll have to raise the federal income tax to an effective rate of 87.6% (see You can’t Reduce the Debt $4 Trillion by Raising Taxes, at least not Mathematically).  That means the government would have to take 87.6% of everything they earn.  That includes the billionaires and the millionaires.  And everyone earning $159,619 or more. 

Is this possible?  Well, if you earn $159,619 annually, that’s $13,301.58 gross pay each month.  After your federal income taxes are withheld, that leaves a whopping $1,649.40 to pay your state taxes, your mortgage, your car payment, your groceries, health insurance, car insurance, gasoline for your car, etc.  Of course, they won’t be able to have these things at this high tax rate.  In fact, they won’t have any money left to spend.  Consumer spending over all would nosedive us into a full blown depression.  Making things even worse than they are now. 

So what is Obama going to do next?

Obama is scheduled to go on a 10-day family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday after completing the economic tour.

While many Americans can no longer afford to take the family on a vacation, he will be spending 10 days in the very swanky Martha’s Vineyards.  Where billionaires and millionaires like to vacation.  And get away from the rabble.  Us.

Politicians are Whores who sell themselves to the Highest Bidder 

The johns threaten to withhold their money from the prostitutes in Washington (see Starbucks CEO urges halt to U.S. political donations by Lisa Baertlein posted 8/15/2011 on Reuters).

In his letter on Monday, Schultz [Starbucks Corp. CEO] invited executives to join him in a “pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”

Men are interested in one thing.  According to all the stereotypes.  And when women want something, they can simply withhold this one thing.  Again, according to the stereotypes.  Eventually the man caves because he can’t live without that one thing.  What a great analogy.  Because all politicians are whores who sell themselves to the highest bidder.  And those buying political favors can simply withhold their money to get what they want.  Which is how government works.  Sadly.

Schultz also urged fellow CEOs to invest in projects or new products that will perk up the economy at a time when fear and uncertainty have made businesses unwilling to invest, consumers unwilling to spend and banks unwilling to lend.

Expand supply in the face of a shrinking demand?  Not a good idea.  Austrian economists call this malinvestment.  This kind of thinking didn’t help ward off the Great Depression.  And it won’t work here.  You create real demand by cutting taxes.  Giving people more money to spend now.  Next week.  Next month.  And next year.  This creates confidence.  Not a one-time stimulus that provides consumers with money to spend one time.  A tax cut will increase demand.  And once consumers are demanding more business will start hiring more. 

I guess a guy who has convinced people to buy over-priced coffee just assumes businesses can make consumers do anything.  But would he open a new Starbucks next to an existing one?  No.  Why?  Because what would probably happen is that each store will have half the business of the first store.  While doubling the overall costs for that business.  So that would be a malinvestment.  So he wouldn’t do it.  Yet he is asking his fellow CEOs to do just that.

Obamanomics has Failed so let’s Return to the Successful Policies of Reaganomics

It’s been about three years.  Record government spending hasn’t done anything but increased the deficit.  And get U.S. credit downgraded.  You can make all the excuses you want.  But eventually you have to answer for your policies.  Obama’s policies have failed.  And left us worse off than we were.

The Keynesian way has once again failed.  Perhaps we should give the Austrian way another try.  Because when Reagan did, those policies worked. 

We tried Obamanomics.  It failed.  So let’s go back to Reaganomics.  At least it has a track record of success.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #29: “The problem with doing what is best for the common good is that few can agree on what the common good is.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2010

COYOTE UGLY

We’ve all heard the joke.  What’s coyote ugly?  That’s when you wake up with an extremely ugly person in bed lying on your arm.  After a night of heavy drinking.  You’re fairly certain you had sex.  You’re not 100% sure because you can’t remember anything.  But here the two of you are.  Naked.  The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning.  You want to get out.  Fast.  Instead of waking your lover, you chew your arm off so you can slip away quietly.  Like a coyote will do if caught in a steel-jaw trap.

The lesson here is, of course, to drink in moderation.  For when we drink to excess, we sometimes do things we wouldn’t normally do sober.  But we do.  Drink to excess.  And get drunk.  And, boy, when we do, some of us really do.  Make a real mess of their lives, too.  You see, drunken husbands do not make happy wives.  Or good fathers.  Especially when drunken husbands beat up their wives, spend their paychecks at the corner saloon, have sex with prostitutes and catch syphilis (which they then pass on to their wives and soon to be born children). 

For these reasons, wives have been behind various temperance movements throughout history.  And they have had modest success.  If you ever found yourself in a dry county thirsting for an adult beverage, you can thank these ladies.  But Prohibition?  That’s a different story.  That took Big Government.  The Progressives.  Who thought they knew best what was for the common good.

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO

Wives have suffered unfairly from the affects of alcohol.  But during the 19th century, their power was limited.  They had to rely on grass-roots movements.  And their churches.  Which had moral authority as we were much more religious back then.  Most drunken husbands knew they were behaving poorly.  When sober.  But things changed in the 20th century.  The powers of the government grew.  This power and new sciences (like eugenics) made some believe they could make a better society by passing enlightened laws.  (And make better people in the case of eugenics).

We call it social engineering.  Using the power of the state to change human behavior.  Well, change it for those who are not apparatchiks of the state.  The elite Progressives, including the ladies of high society, still drank.  For it wasn’t illegal to drink adult beverages.  Only to manufacture, sell, or transport them.  So it was the poorer elements of society who felt the impact of Prohibition.  And the immigrants.  Who the social elites blamed for all the drinking woes.  For people in their strata of society didn’t have drinking problems.  So there was no reason to punish them.  The elites.  They weren’t the problem.  It was the poor.  And the immigrants.  They’re the ones government needed to keep from drinking themselves to ruin.

So while the elites still enjoyed their intoxicating beverages in the safety of their mansions and clubs, Al Capone and other bootleggers fought for turf.  For control of the illegal liquor trade.  Shooting each other with Thompson Machine Guns in our public streets.  That’s a .45 caliber round.  It makes big holes.  And shatters bone.  A lot of these rounds were flying through our public streets.  And they hit more than just gangsters.

Prohibition modified some behavior.  But at great cost.  Congress repealed it in 1933.  In part to stem the liquor violence.  And part because the Great Depression was too depressing sober.

JUST SAY NO

I once worked at a small office in a bad part of town.  One day a woman knocked on the door.  She asked if that ‘short guy’ that opens the gates in the morning was around.  I said no.  Then she asked me if I wanted to have a little fun.  I said, “Thank you, but no.”  My secretary had come to the door while I was talking to her.  After I closed the door, she told me that woman just lost a lot of weight.  And that she probably had AIDS.

Women like her were common in the neighborhood.  They sold sex for drug money.  When they weren’t with a John they were getting high.  Men, too.  One time, this 6-foot-plus behemoth in a skirt was walking in the street shouting something incoherent.  Our driver discovered he was a guy.  When he lunged through his open window while turning at the corner.  I don’t know what scared him more.  The assault.  Or the fact that she was a he. 

By the way, that short guy that opens the gates?  He was married.  And had a couple of daughters.  God only knows what he gave his wife.

Drug addiction is not good.  No one’s life ever got better by being addicted to drugs.  None of these people ever planned on drug addiction.  It just happened.  Somehow.  One day you’re just partying with some friends.  Then the next thing you know you’re turning tricks or stealing to support your habit.  If you have money it’s a different story.  Then you can party until you kill yourself.  John Belushi overdosed from a heroin/cocaine cocktail called a speedball.  Chris Farley, too.  It’s unlikely that the speedball was their first high.  They probably started out with something less potent.  Like marijuana.  The entry drug of choice.  Only when that drug loses its charm do people step up to something a little more potent. 

Of course, if you don’t start, chances are you won’t move up to something more potent.  This was the idea behind Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug program.  Stop the kids from starting.  To resist peer pressure.  To just say no.  Her program did modify some behavior.  Kids did use fewer drugs.  But she was Ronald Reagan’s wife.  The Left didn’t like him.  Or her.  So they ridiculed her program as being simplistic.  Discontinued it.  And drug use by kids increased.

GANGSTA’S PARADISE

Like Capone and his fellow bootleggers, the illegal drug trade is controlled by gangs.  And they, too, fight over turf.  But those involved at the street level of the drug trade today are a lot younger.  During the days of Prohibition, kids played with toy guns.  Today, they’re playing with real guns.  Not so much playing but killing each other.  And innocent bystanders.  In drive-by shootings.  Why?  Because drugs get you money.  And money gets you power.  Put all that together and it’s very seductive to kids from broken homes in the hood.  Who have nothing.  And have nothing to lose.  It’s almost romantic.  Fighting.  And dying.  A regular gangster.  Living in a gangster paradise.

Once in, though, it’s hard to get out.  The song Gangsta’s Paradise (by Coolio featuring L.V. from the 1995 Movie Dangerous Minds) laments about that paradise.  “Tell me why are we so blind to see.  That the ones we hurt are you and me.”

You get higher up in the echelon and the violence gets worse.  You can see that on America’s southern border.  And further south.  Kidnappings.  Beheadings.  And other unspeakable things.  Because of the big money in illegal drugs.  Like there was in bootlegging.  Make something illegal that people still want and will buy, and that something becomes a very profitable commodity indeed.

DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON’T

So what’s the answer?  What is the best course of action for the common good?  We can keep drugs illegal.  And continue to fight the war on drugs.  And watch the violence escalate as people fight to control this illicit trade.  Or we can decriminalize drugs.  Make them easily accessible.  And cheap.  The drug gangs would go the way of the bootlegger gangs.  And the crack/meth whore in the street won’t have to perform as many sexual acts to support her habit.

Alcohol is legal today.  And there are a lot of social costs because of that.  But the majority of people who do drink are not driving under the influence or beating their wives.  Or getting syphilis from a prostitute hanging out at the corner saloon.  Wouldn’t it be the same for drugs?

Kids drink.  Even though they can’t legally buy alcohol.  But the worse thing they can do is kill someone while driving a car.  Or get killed in a car driven by another drunken kid.  Or kill themselves from binge drinking.  Or get pregnant because they got drunk at a party.  Or get infected with a venereal disease because they got drunk at a party and had sex.  These are very bad things.  But they’re not an addiction.  Sure, you can become an alcoholic, but a lot of kids don’t like the taste of the adult beverages they’re consuming.  They’re just doing it for the party buzz.  And vomiting after.  It takes awhile, for some, to get over that hump where those awful tasting beverages don’t taste so awful anymore.  But drugs?  They’re tasteless.  There isn’t a delivery system ‘hump’ to get over.  Which makes the addiction process that much easier.  And where there is only one kind of drunk, there are all sorts of highs.  New and different drugs to explore.  When you get bored with the drug du jour.  So, no.  It probably wouldn’t be the same with alcohol.  It would probably be worse.

THE LESSER OF EVILS

Often the choice comes down to a lesser of evils.  So, to do what is best for the common good, we just need to determine which is the lesser evil.  So which is worse?  The violence from trying to keep something illegal?  Or the social costs of decriminalizing something that is already causing a lot of harm while being illegal?  It comes down to what you, as an individual, think.  And that is, must be, a subjective decision.  And therein lays the problem of choosing what is best for the common good.  It’s an opinion.  Choices aren’t right or wrong.  There’re just different opinions.

And that’s why so few can agree on what is best for the common good.  Different people think different things are better.  And different things are worse.  And, at best, they can agree to disagree.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,