Big Brother's Pain

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Populists often complain that the government fails to exercise sufficient control over the people. Here I present a counter-example, an instance, among many, in which the government exercises altogether too much control and exercises it badly (that is, with a combination of stupidity and brutality). Also, the article itself is of such a quality that I should be inclined to include it in a nonfiction anthology, if I were to edit such a thing.   One striking aspect of this problem is that even such a powerful, and relatively intelligent and educated, constituency as doctors seems unable to reign in these vicious governmental incursions into their territory. I suspect this is partly due to the generally cavalier attitude of the "macho" medical establishment toward the problem of pain. The projected "machismo", of course, is laughable--and, fortunately, this superficial posturing may gradually fade as the female of the species overruns the profession. These doctors are cowardly conformists bowing to the half-wits who run the DEA and the quasi-fascist prosecutors who prefer to risk sending innocent men to prison rather than risk allowing guilty men to remain free.   I think this article makes it clear that much of the mismanagement of pain in this country is due to ignorance and prejudice. But, the government should not be in the business of managing pain in the first place. I think bureaucratic or judicial determination of the appropriate amount of pain a person should be forced to live with is far outside the bounds of government's proper sphere of action. The state should interfere only when someone inflicts harm upon another--not when (as in the case of a drug user) he might be inflicting harm upon himself. It is this type of tyrannical brutality that invites and justifies the existence of the black market, the mafias, the corrupt officials, and all the other people and organizations that effectively resist or subvert the government. The only thing that causes me to hesitate in my advocacy for this degree of liberty: the possibility that the sober part of the population will be burdened by the possible overbreeding of the heavy users (though I am not aware of evidence that this group is especially prone to procreation).

More Paternalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/09salvia.html?hp Salvia is a natural hallucinogen that causes intense psychedelic experience that lasts for 5 minutes. Florida recently made possession or sale of it a felony with a maximum prison term of 15 years. This really enters upon the territory of tyrannical overreach. It is insanely disproportionate to any threat to the citizenry--there's no evidence that anyone in Florida has ever harmed himself or anyone else under influence of this plant. It is not even considered addictive. The only hope of keeping it legal is to tax it promptly to give government a stake in its continued availability. This is why the legality of alcohol and tobacco are not threatened (despite the fact that they are far more deadly to their users and to non-users in proximity to users than salvia or marijuana). This illegalizing fetish of our governments is symbolic: it is one of many strategies employed to chip away, bit by bit, at liberty. We are ever more overwatched, regulated, classified, tracked, lied to, protected from ourselves, infantilized.   I've always been inclined to Jefferson's view: the tree of liberty must be fertilized per occasion with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Tyranny waxes all ways. The tree desiccates. Blood is wanted.

Proportion Intoxicated

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html --
The report’s findings track with similar studies by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which has found that roughly seven million Americans are abusing prescription drugs. If accurate, that would be an increase of 80 percent in six years and more than the total abusing cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, Ecstasy and inhalants.
The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.
Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).
The study also found that while the number of people who died with heroin in their bodies increased 14 percent in 2007, to 110, deaths related to the opioid oxycodone increased 36 percent, to 1,253.

So this comes to about 4500 drug-related deaths: 10% from alcohol, 20% from illegal drugs, 70% from pharmaceuticals. Clearly, these numbers do not include fatalities indirectly caused by drugs (for example, drunk-driving deaths which must be at least 500 per year in Florida--or the violent deaths common in the illegal drug business). The pharmaceutical fatalities do not concern me. I am content to give people the respect of a natural personal responsibility for their own health--a key element of liberty.

Need I mention the absurd contrast between the perils of  alcohol and many pharmaceuticals compared to marijuana--which produced zero direct deaths despite frequency of usage which surpasses all others except alcohol. But, the huge senile contingent of voters plus the vast backwater of pseudo-christians, abetted by cowardly politicos keep that wonderful weed still confined to a semi-proscribed status. It ought to be legalized: this would save many billions presently spent on the police-prison-welfare industrial complex--and, as a small, incidental bonus, improve quality of life for millions. Also, it would set an example for the rest of the world to follow--though few of the wealthy nations have such costly pot policies as ours.

I am theoretically in favor of legalization of all drugs. However, the relevant portion of our criminal law renders this problematic in practice, based as it largely is on the purpose and intent of the criminal. A sufficient degree of intoxication degrades one's capacity to formulate purpose and intent--and the less of these a criminal possesses the less likely he is to be convicted of a given crime and the shorter his sentence is likely to be. So it follows--most prevalent forms of intoxication (including alcohol, but not marijuana) increase the propensity to engage in criminal conduct, and the law reinforces this propensity by offering reduced punishment for the intoxicated. Before the Victorian era English common law (and presumably American as well) considered intoxication an aggravation of the offense, not a defense or mitigation. Under that venerable dispensation legalization could work; under ours, I fear, it cannot. In a rational analysis of which drugs are susceptible to legalization, the violence-promoting aspect ought to be foremost among the determinative factors (PCP, for example, would be an unattractive candidate, LSD probably attractive).  

Channelling Kafka

Stupidity and brutality in the drug war, aided and abetted by the coward Jeb Bush, a coward judge, scumbag prosecutors and moron cops:
http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-richard-paey-pardoned.html
This puritanical frenzy about psychoactive drugs that "our" government has invented and encouraged and financed for decades--really benefits only bureaucrats and gangsters. And considering that government is definitionally the biggest mafia in the land, I suppose that means bureaucrats and gangsters are rather close relations. At least the various ethnic mafias don't force us to pay protection money to protect us from ourselves...the gangsters are too honest for that, but the mendacity of the mandarins is unbounded.