Via Unreasonable Faith

As we approach the ten year anniversary of the deadliest attack on US soil while at the same time trying to solve major budget problems, I feel this quote from Bin Laden himself back in ’04 is something more people should read:

We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. … We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. … All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations

Source: Al-Jazeera via CNN.com

But of course we should keep spending billions on unwinnable wars while we have a budget crisis and giving up more and more of our freedoms and privacy to government intrusion, because that makes sense somehow in a country that supposedly values its freedom.

Recently the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs published a report in The Lancet ranking twenty popular recreational drugs based on the harm caused to the both user and others around them. The drugs were judged individually on sixteen total harm criteria covering physical, psychological, and social harm. The categories were then weighted by importance (likelihood to cause death is worth more points than likelihood to cause family problems, harm to society is worse than harm to the individual, etc.) The results ended up ranking alcohol as the most harmful by far (72/100), followed by a close battle between heroin and crack cocaine (55 and 54/100, respectively), then methamphetamine at the #4 spot (32/100) and trailing off from there down to hallucinogenic mushrooms at #20 with 6/100.

These results should be unsurprising to anyone who has read any similar reports in the past. They also line up quite well with the arguments often made in favor of loosening or eliminating existing drug laws (the “alcohol is legal, why isn’t this?” argument). Unfortunately they have almost no association with the rankings used in modern drug laws almost anywhere in the world. In the majority of the world alcohol and tobacco are legal and often sold directly by or under the close watch of the government, yet in the name of “reducing harm” the majority if not all of the rest of the drugs on this list are not only illegal but also carry stiff penalties for mere possession.

Of course the logical thing to do when science indicates policy is wrong is to amend policy, right? After all, the UK has a scientific board involved with their drug policy, unlike the USA where the DEA is free to basically set policy as they see fit (fox watching the henhouse, anyone?). Nope, of course when a government is shown to be wrong by its scientists, the first thing they do is fire them, then change the law so they’re not needed, and finally go entirely in the opposite direction and not only remove the requirement that harm be demonstrated but instead assume any newly discovered recreational drugs should be restricted until they are determined to be OK by unspecified criteria.

It seems another country is following America’s lead of ignoring scientific evidence for political gain: When the scientists don’t come up with the answers you want, don’t change your ideas, just get rid of the scientists.

I don’t get it. Why is it so hard to get a government to admit that when compared to legal recreational drugs many illegal ones are less harmful, sometimes to a significant extent?

Here are my thoughts on how to structure sane drug laws:

• NEVER criminalize personal drug possession. All this does is give criminal records to those who are in most cases otherwise productive members of society and restrict those who may have real problems from getting help for fear of persecution and/or prosecution.
• Base ALL policy on science and science alone. Media and politician fueled fear rarely makes for accurate policy, so standards should be set and then followed without special treatment for any substances.
• Regulate the drugs you do allow, but only as necessary to ensure quality and safety
• Revisit all policies regularly. New studies bring new evidence to light all the time and sometimes changes will be needed.

On top of that, something I believe applies to all laws rather than just drug policy, is to have goals for the law based on testable criteria. If after a certain time the goals have not been met, maybe it’s time for another look. Is the goal still worthwhile? How close did this policy come to meeting the goal? If it came close, can it be tweaked? If it missed by a lot or made things worse, what’s a different approach?

Current policy is sold to us as reducing harm to society and cutting back on crime, when in reality it’s wasting billions in enforcement and correctional resources, ruining lives, and fueling an enormously profitable black market which funds almost all levels of crime. Science and policy are at odds and two of the most powerful countries in the world are working to keep it that way. We need to keep pressure on our politicians to resolve this.

Rather than going over the same topics time and time again, I figure I’ll lay down a few posts explaining my position on hot-button issues and why I take the position I do. These posts are intended to provoke discussion and as such I will attempt to limit my usual unfiltered outbursts of profanity and ad hominem attacks on the vocal members of “the other side” to cases where the stupid is so extreme that it’s overwhelming.

Up first is the topic of health care reform. I’ve been meaning to write a post on this for months but work and real life get in the way.

According to the World Health Organization, in 2000 the United States ranked 37th in overall quality of our health care system while at the same time we paid more per capita by far, even when looking at it as a percentage of GDP rather than a strict dollar amount, than any other country in the survey. The cost per person has continued to go up since then, from around $4200 in the 2000 study to nearly $7700 for 2008 according to the government’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid.

To me, that right there is enough to say the system we currently have is completely screwed up. We’re paying much more per person than any other country in the world for health care and we’re nowhere close to the best at providing it. The current system has failed miserably.

Now, as for how to fix it…

I hope my readers will agree that if a critically sick or injured person is brought to an emergency room, it’s unethical and morally wrong to turn them away if they can be helped regardless of ability to pay for services rendered. Also, I believe it’s entirely without controversy to state that preventative medicine and catching things early is in almost all cases significantly less expensive than treatment after the fact, especially if such treatment is under emergency conditions. What could be cured with antibiotics today may require emergency surgery if left untreated for a week or two.

Where I’m going with this is that a large amount of the costs in health care right now go towards paying for emergency services performed on those who can’t otherwise afford to see a doctor, so they either ignore the problem hoping it gets better on its own until they have to go to the ER or in some cases they just abuse the ER for minor things which should be handled through a family doctor. Either way, the bills get paid through higher charges to paying customers and insurance companies, but since they’re ER visits they cost much more than they otherwise would.

What we need is to get more people to have regular doctor visits to keep them aware of their health and help catch problems before they need tens of thousands of dollars in surgery. Unfortunately, we soon run in to another problem. If you’ve ever had medical care paid by an insurance company and then looked at the invoice, you’ll note the often extremely high cost listed for the care, then a significantly lower price which is what the insurance company actually paid. If you go in uninsured, you pay the really big number. This means that if you want health care in this country you pretty much have to be insured.

Now, let’s take a look at insurance. The entire concept of insurance is spreading the risk of high-cost events amongst a group. Everyone pays a low amount in to a pool which is then used to cover the rare high-cost events when they happen. The larger the pool, the more effectively it can cover where needed.

To me it’s a fairly simple jump from here. If health insurance is basically required to have decent health care and insurance works best over a large pool, the logical solution is a single insurance pool covering all citizens of a country. I believe that this should cover essential care as well as recommended preventative visits, vaccinations, etc. This would provide a baseline level of coverage which should eliminate the abuse of the ER system and raise the overall health of the country while still leaving room for private insurance plans to provide further coverage on “extras” not covered by the base plans such as cosmetic procedures.

You don’t have to look far to find dozens of countries who have implemented similar systems (though often with restrictions on private insurance which I see as unnecessary and counterproductive) and have better overall health plus spend less money, and from where I stand the quality of health care per dollar metric seems like the best one to go with.

To those about to freak out about socialism blah blah blah, your police and fire departments are socialist and that works perfectly. If someone was to hit-and-run me in my car leaving me seriously injured and my car on fire, then someone calls 911, I’d get a response from police, fire, and EMS. The police would go out trying to find and arrest the other driver, costing their department hundreds or thousands in resources tied up, wear, man-hours, etc. The fire department would rush out and put out the fire, costing their department hundreds or thousands in the same ways. EMS would come out and take me to the hospital where the ER would fix me up, using hundreds or thousands of dollars of equipment, drugs, man-hours, etc. Only one of those three would then send me a bill.

Yesterday Pat Robertson made another one of his trademark idiotic statements. In response to Maine providing homosexual couples the right to marry, Mr. Robertson went on CBN and opened his mouth to let this shit dribble out:

Here is a transcript, snagged from Think Progress:

HOST: Meanwhile, the New Hampshire legislature has also voted in favor of gay marriage, but Pat, the governor there still isn’t sure if he will approve that bill.

ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent.

He starts off with what is actually a very good point. If polygamy was made illegal for religious reasons, then it most certainly should not be illegal. Of course my position is the reverse of his, so I see it as “so why is polygamy still illegal?” He then steps off the logic bus and boards the crazy train by claiming the next steps would then be bestiality and pedophilia. There’s this little detail he’s ignoring of course, and that is informed adult consent. Homosexual marriages are between two consenting adults. Polygamy would also be a number of marriages between consenting adults. Bestiality, pedophilia, and all the other things the Christian crazies claim necessarily follow gay marriage clearly don’t.

Can someone please tell me why people keep listening to this ignorant idiot?

Video courtesy Media Matters.
Transcript and inspiration to write courtesy Think Progress.

With the Obama administration looking like they will be rolling back Bush era policies allowing doctors to refuse to perform certain procedures and/or refuse to prescribe or sell certain medications (let’s say RU-486 for example) the Internet’s political debate hotspots have erupted as expected. Over at the Something Awful forums I saw a great post that completely explains my position on this issue:

It’s a sad reflection on the influence of the religious right that this is even a noteworthy issue. If you work at Burger King, and one day you decide that you don’t like the Double Whopper and won’t serve it to people anymore (say, for reasons of their health), you get fired. If you’re an network administrator and one day decide that TCP/IP is the devil’s protocol and you won’t use it, you get fired. The list goes on. Giving people the legal medication they need is the job of the pharmacist and doctor. Their job is not “Make value judgments about my patients and then prescribe what medications I personally believe are good”. We have a central regulatory body that determines what medicines and procedures are legal to give out and perform. Doctors and pharmacists are expected to adhere to these. A pharmacist who decided that he would no longer give cancer patients their drugs or a doctor who decided he will substitute phrenology for a general exam would find themselves out of jobs in short order. The only reason this is an issue is because for some reason “It’s my religion!” is taken as a valid excuse for not doing your job.

If you are a pharmacist, it is your job to dispense medications as prescribed. Your personal morals have absolutely no legitimate influence on this. If you do not like this fact, find another job. What the right wing wants here would be equivalent to a pacifist joining the Marines and then complaining that they were being sent to war.

If you’re still convinced that this “religious freedom” is the right option, pretend you live in a small town with one local doctor. Now pretend that doctor is a Jehova’s Witness. Now think about what happens if you or a loved one needs a transfusion. Your local doctor would then be fully able to refuse to give you/your loved one a transfusion because it goes against their religion.

If you don’t like the job requirements, find another job. Don’t whine that you chose a job that conflicts with your beliefs. Put up or shut up, either way your morals don’t have any effect on me.

According to CNET, Billy Corgan (of Smashing Pumpkins fame) went in front of Congress to argue against the exemption that allows terrestrial radio broadcasters to only pay songwriters and publishers, but not artists, for the right to play their music. Satellite and internet broadcasters by comparison must pay all three.

I’m 100% in favor of making things even between the three radio mediums, as it’s absurd that terrestrial broadcast radio is treated as something special, but I think it should go in the other direction. Rather than raising the rates paid by terrestrial broadcasters to equal those paid by satellite and internet broadcast, I believe the latter two should have their rates lowered to match terrestrial. Some stations are simulcast on all three (Clear Channel has a partnership with XM satellite radio and is also pushing their internet streaming heavily now with their “iheartradio” iPhone app) with three different rates applying. Wouldn’t it make more sense overall to just have one simple charge based on number of listeners? This charge should be much less than it is now, as the radio is second only to word of mouth for how people find new bands.

Radio is a dying medium as it is thanks to satellite (which isn’t doing too hot right now either), streaming, and MP3 players. We don’t need to make it worse.

PZ over at Pharyngula linked to this Facebook group, so I had to share. Blasphemy Day International 2009.

I’m not the first to post this today, but it’s certainly worth the read. The following is from Robert Ingersoll’s “What I Want For Christmas.”

If I had the power to produce exactly what I want for next Christmas, I would have all the kings and emperors resign and allow the people to govern themselves.

I would have all the nobility crop their titles and give their lands back to the people.

I would have the Pope throw away his tiara, take off his sacred vestments, and admit that he is not acting for God, is not infallible, and is just an ordinary Italian.

I would have all the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and clergymen admit that they know nothing about theology, nothing about hell or heaven, nothing about the destiny of the human race, nothing about devils or ghosts, gods or angels. I would have them tell all their “flocks” to think for themselves, to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in their power to increase the sum of human happiness.

I would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in schools of every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree that they would teach only what they know and not palm off guesses as demonstrated truths.

I would like to see all the politicians changed to statesmen:

• Men who long to make their country great and free
• Men who care more for public good than private gain
• Men who long to be of use

I would like to see all the editors of papers and magazines agree to print the truth and nothing but the truth, to avoid all slander and misrepresentation, and to let the private affairs of the people alone.

I would like to see drunkenness and prohibition both abolished.

I would like to see corporal punishment done away with in every home, in every school, in every asylum, reformatory, and prison. Cruelty hardens and degrades, kindness reforms and ennobles.

I would like to see millionaires unite and form a trust for the public good.

I would like to see a fair division of profits between capital and labor, so that the toiler could save enough to mingle a little June with the December of his life.

I would like to see an international court established in which to settle disputes between nations, so that armies could be disbanded and the great navies allowed to rust and rot in perfect peace.

I would like to see the whole world free — free from injustice, and free from superstition.

This will do for next Christmas. The following Christmas, I may want more.

I think many of us could agree that if somehow these requests could be granted the world would be a vastly better place.

Via Unreasonable Faith and Cynical-C

Today is the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition.  As a fan of alcohol in all its forms, I figured I’d write up a bit of history and my thoughts on the lessons of Prohibition.

The roots of Prohibition can be traced to the mid-1800s when certain Christian groups, particularly Methodists and later Baptists.  Many states passed dry laws leading up to December 1917 when the eighteenth amendment was proposed.  The amendment took over a year before it was ratified in January of 1919 when Utah approved it.  Rhode Island and Connecticut were the only two states to not ratify the amendment, and in fact both put out statements rejecting it.

Of course many Americans did not like the government telling them what they could drink, so the new illegal status didn’t really do much except create a black market.  Now what comes with a black market?  That’s right, crime.  If it weren’t for Prohibition, do you really think gangsters like Al Capone could have made as much money as they made and had the power that they had?

We all know by now that the government is slow to realize its mistakes, and even slower when those mistakes are still being backed by powerful political groups.  Due to the incredible influence of the religious groups who supported prohibition it took fourteen years before the twenty-first amendment was proposed in February of 1933.  Once again, Utah was the state that made it official by crossing the 2/3 requirement on this day 75 years ago.  South Carolina rejected the amendment and North Carolina’s voters decided against having a convention to consider it.

I believe these lessons need to be applied to many other recreational-use drugs such as marijuana.  The modern alcohol distribution system shows how to efficiently operate and regulate such drugs, and sales numbers show how many of us are responsibly using it.  I don’t see any reason the same can’t apply to the world’s favorite smokable plant.

Some argue that legalizing marijuana for recreational use will put everyone in danger with people working and/or driving stoned.  Again I say just look at alcohol.  The vast majority of the population consumes it safely and those who don’t are dealt with strictly.  When vaporized it has very little effect on respiratory health (unlike tobacco), not to mention it can be eaten, and it is impossible to overdose without a direct IV injection of THC (unlike alcohol).

It just seems hypocritical and pointless to make a safer and more enjoyable drug illegal, fueling a black market, when we could be regulating quality and funding projects with taxed while also allowing our citizens to alter their state of mind as they choose.