$words[rand()]

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.

Today is the 75^th 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.