perfidy

Mark Kleiman weighs in on last week's incident in which Colorado law enforcement used the threat of RAVE Act prosecution to stop a pot-legalization concert. His is an interesting opinion, and one rarely heard in the blog-o-sphere.

Maybe Glenn [Reynolds] is right: perhaps the new law was a bad idea. Certainly, it gives lots of discretionary power to a Justice Department whose current leadership has consistently abused the powers entrusted to it, as when it tried to use the DEA’s power to revoke the licenses that physicians need to prescribe controlled substances to nullify Oregon’s assisted-suicide law. If the DEA really did what it has been accused of doing in this case – which seems plausible, though at the moment the only available accounts are from sources hostile to the DEA – that can’t really be called surprising.

But the target of the law – the growing use of MDMA (“ecstasy”) – is a genuine, and potentially large, problem, and the law has, in my view, a better chance of doing something about that problem than most drug-policy initiatives have of reaching their targets. Here’s why I think so:

Starting in the mid-1990s, MDMA emerged rather suddenly from the alphabet soup of recreational chemicals to become what is now probably the second-most-widely used purely illicit drug, behind cannabis. . . .The current MDMA initiation rate is higher than the cocaine initiation rate ever was: cocaine peaked at about 1.5 million new users per year.

Even more troubling, what used to be a distinctively “European” MDMA use pattern – multiple doses, every night, every weekend – has become much more common here, and that more dangerous pattern is closely associated with “raves”: all-night dance parties with a mostly youthful clientele and a set of musical styles conducive to trance-dancing.

MDMA is a highly reinforcing drug; it induces in many users a strongly positive emotional state that lasts for several hours. But it has one very peculiar characteristic: its capacity to produce that state typically wears off with repeated use. Virtually any drug will create a tolerance: that is, over time higher doses will be needed to generate the same biological effects. But the diminished effects of MDMA cannot be recovered by using more of the drug: that’s the peculiar characteristic. . . .

That being so, neither the fact that the RAVE Act will tend to discourage some socially responsible actions by rave operators (such as providing “chill-out” rooms, encouraging the distribution of information about the risks of MDMA use and how to limit them, and allowing on-site pill-testing) nor the risk that the law will be abused, as it seems to have been in the Montana case, suffices to convince me that it will do more harm than good.

I can imagine a radically different approach to MDMA policy, based on harm reduction via dose and frequency limitation, that might have better overall results, but I can’t imagine getting such a policy adopted in the current political climate. If the practical alternative to the RAVE Act was drug policy as usual -- a little more law enforcement, longer sentences for dealers, and inventing fancier lies to tell the children -- at least the RAVE Act stands out from its background as having some chance of not being a complete waste of effort. . . .

The bare assertion by Glenn’s friends at the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism that “The RAVE Act has no valid law enforcement purpose” fails to convince.

While agree with Kleiman that MDMA is a big problem, and a dangerous drug, I can't get behind his analysis of the situation. Drugs are ALREADY illegal. More laws aren't going to make them more so. (How much more black can you go? None. None more black.) Worse, Kleiman underestimates the collateral effects of the law, and probably isn't aware of others.

I have attended, well, if not exactly raves, then parties that would be raves if more people were present. I had a wonderful time, and did not take Ecstasy. Part of my enjoyment hinged on the existence of the "chill-out" room. I could go sit in blue-lit quietness, relax, and most importantly DRINK WATER. My point? That classifying the presence of chill-out rooms as a priori evidence of drug use is illogical, and discouraging party planners from setting up such a room is a health risk to all present. They exist for all dancers to get away from the heat and rehydrate, not just the damn drug users. Furthermore, organizations like Dance Safe, who offer drug-testing to partygoers to ensure the purity of the doses, have done a WHOLE lot of good. Keeping them from doing their job will just make matters worse as party-drug use goes further and further underground, and adulterated drugs go undetected. Think bathtub gin-- it's bad news.

Moreover, no objection to the RAVE Act has touched on what I find most regrettable. Let me tell you a story. I have a good friend, let's call him Zippy, who has been promoting concerts in his hometown since he was fourteen. Mostly, these concerts have been scuzzy local teenagers playing music for other scuzzy local teenagers. In the process, Zippy has learned a lot of skills: marketing, negotiation, basic contracts, event planning, how to obtain licenses and security through legitimate channels, crisis management, and a bucketload of chutzpah. Even more, Zippy was instrumental in creating a "scene" in his hometown-- a network of people and events that focussed the energy of that class of teenager who would otherwise be off sniffing glue, vandalizing, and getting into adult-size trouble. Many of the kids at these shows came away with ideas of their own. The experience has taught Zippy a lot, contributed money to the local economy, improved the quality of life in his community, and actually helped the children (think of the children!).

But forget all that. Zippy has gotten out of the local-concert business forever. Why? Because, over the years there have been some incidents. Crackpipes in a crowd. Pot being sold on the premises. Underage drinking. And although Zippy always took steps to eliminate this behavior, hiring off-duty policement as security to patrol the crowd, and letting it be known that no such behavior would be tolerated, things happen. After years of rising police pressure, the RAVE Act has been the final straw. Now that Zippy knows that he could serve a long felony drug rap just because some dumbass kid brought meth to one of his shows, he's done. Never mind his work keeping the kids off drugs. Never mind his conscientious approach to security. He fears that one slip-up could land him in Mandatory Minimum-land. In his assessment, the risk is now too great, so he's done.

This is the kind of undetectable collateral damage the RAVE act can and will do, and why I am foursquare against it. If Zippy-- who has contributed a great deal to his community-- quits for fear of prison, then something is wrong, I think. The RAVE Act is dangerous, wrongheaded, overreaching, and stupid.

A bit like using a neutron bomb to take care of a rat problem in your basement.

By way of Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, this quote from Michael McFaul, a poli-sci prof at Stanford, writing in the New York Times Review of Books. The book under review was Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History. Here is the beginning of the review:

In visiting Poland last month, President Bush took the time to go to Auschwitz and tour one of the most ghastly assaults to humanity in the history of mankind. After finishing his tour, he remarked: "And this site is also a strong reminder that the civilized world must never forget what took place on this site. May God bless the victims and the families of the victims, and may we always remember."

The next day, Mr. Bush was in St. Petersburg, Russia. While there, he did not make it up to the Solovetsky Islands, the site of the first camp of the gulag. Nor did he call upon the world to "always remember" the millions of people who perished in the Soviet concentration camps well before Auschwitz was constructed and well after Auschwitz was dismantled. The families of the victims of Soviet Communism — much more numerous than the families who lost loved ones in Hitler's camps — received no special blessing from the leader of the free world. Mr. Bush should not be singled out for failing to remember the innocents killed in the gulag. Rarely do visiting dignitaries take time to remember the tragedies of Soviet Communism.

I agree, wholeheartedly. Some of the nations of Eastern Europe are examining the crimes of their communist governments, like Hungary. Russia has not, and shows no sign of even thinking of it. And far too many people give the Communists a free pass on millions of deaths.

From Richard Brookhiser

It is Buckethead's 34th birthday today. He is now solidly in his mid thirties.

Alright. We'll start with this electronic philosophy journal article. I found it to be highly politicized, though politics and economy are strongly related to one another. So let's look at a few statements from the article: 

The thinking seems to be that the profits of business should either be given directly to workers through pay raises or be taken by the government to be given to workers indirectly.

Wow! What a great idea! I'm all for it. Oh wait there's more:

Producing greater profits is thought of as useless and immoral.

Right again! What a great article! Oh, hang on: “

However, if Say's Law is correct, life improves through greater production, not through higher nominal wages. Greater production requires greater capitalization -- money invested in machinery and training -- and the capital for that must come out of profits.

Well, you lost me there. Okay, so to simplify, fuck the poor. Yeah. I've seen this movie. I'll quote myself from at least two lectures last spring, "Profits for the wealthy come with the exploitation of labor." 

Perhaps I shouldn't quote myself. I could go blind. Back to the subject at hand, so to speak (*ahem*), supply side economics, or free market capitalism, benefit ownership and management over labor. This will not change so long as the system is maintained. Tax cuts, especially capital gains, invariably benefit those with the most money. They do not benefit wage-workers (or adjunct profs) who have no investments, no savings, and literally hang by their fingernails in a free market capitalist system. 

Steve will undoubtedly launch a thousand counter-arguments, if history is any guide. I will only deal with ones that I make up, here and now. Counter: tax cuts make a good economy. A good economy means more workers are hired. 

Then exploited. The aforementioned article states that profits have to be reinvested, and not in the workers. To stay afloat, businesses have to maintain a healthy bottom line in the free market system. To do that, they pay their workers as little as possible. If they make lots of money, they keep it, or invest it, then get tax breaks on their investments. 

I previously asked for quantitative analysis on this subject. That was a trick question. Economic issues are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Why? It's a matter of faith. People believe that when they hand over green pieces of paper or shiny metal round things, they receive goods and services in exchange. If a majority of people changed their beliefs, and decided that the green paper is for the wiping of asses and the shiny round things are fun to eat, the whole deal collapses. Faith cannot be quantified. It cannot be quantitatively proven that God exists; it cannot be quantitatively proven that free market capitalism, or any of the economic systems attempted thus far, work. 

Free market capitalism creates a permanent underclass. The individual members of the underclass might ascend, but ultimately, there is always an underclass. Capitalism requires a large number of people to work for wages beneath a level of comfort. I'll anticipate another counter: the poor in America do better than the poor in other countries. They have material possessions. 

Do they? There are still people in this country who are homeless and hungry. There are people who have not been apportioned according to their need. This is not me. I'm discussing people with families below the poverty level, who try as they might, cannot get their heads above water. As to material possessions, can many people actually afford them, or do they go into debt to acquire them, invariably sinking into bankruptcy? Poverty has not been eliminated anywhere in the world. Free market capitalism will not eliminate poverty, nor have centrally planned economies, because they do not produce a sufficient number of consumer goods or provide decent standards of living. Nothing seems to work perfectly. 

Counter: perfection is unattainable. To quote Matt Groening, from School is Hell, "you'll never get anywhere with that defeatist attitude." 

The solution? I've said it before. I don't have the answers. I have ideas.

This article is a good introduction to the supply side/laffer curve arguments. I'll find some more links and post them. These theories are not vague handwaving. Arthur Laffer, and others in the Chicago School of economists (Friedman, Hayek, etc) have studied and published on these matters. And unlike Keynesian economic theory which was proved incorrect by the stagflation of the 70s, it has been an accurate predictor (on the large scale).

Ross is correct to demand means testing - but the reason that drugs are available for cheap in Canada is because patients in the United States paid for them (and the research that developed them) at much higher prices. Canada is getting a free ride. Ross' solution only spreads out the cost - but does not effect the calculations that drug companies will make on which drugs to develop. (A shorter patent period would mean more expensive drugs for a shorter time.) 

But the problem that he brings up: the older generation passing every law needed for a comfortable retirement - which can only screw our generation - is broader than merely prescription drug plans. It applies to Medicare, Social Security, and all the entitlement plans whose costs will spiral out of control once all the greedy self righteous boomers start retiring in large numbers. 

Who among us, under the age of forty, thinks that there will be any social security waiting for us? The Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not obligated to provide us with SS benefits. They can change the rules at any time. But will they change them before the system goes totally belly up? Probably not. 
 

That tax cuts cause the economy to grow is not tired conservative rhetoric. The economy, over the last fifty years, has boomed after every significant tax cut - after WWII, after Kennedy's tax cuts in the early sixties, after Reagan's twenty years later, and after the capital gains reduction in the mid nineties. The economy in the seventies was in the shitter in every respect. Reagan not only reduced the taxes, but swept away the price controls, wage controls, and excessive regulation of business. The economy took off. With the exception of defense spending, Reagan attempted to reduce or at least stabilize government spending - it was the congress that ran the huge deficits. 

The capital gains tax cut directly affected the amount of money available for investment, and for raising capital. One of the reasons that the tech boom happened was the huge influx in venture capital made possible by the capital gains tax cut.

When you think about it, how does the economy grow? It is not through government action. The economy grows when people develop new businesses, new technologies, new methods. They develop these things with the help of investor money. That money is available because people save and earn. When taxes rise, money is pulled out of the economy, and is unavailable for capital development, and is unavailable for the people who would purchase the new products or services. Thus, higher taxes serve as a break on the economy. 

Granted, money that we give to the government can be useful - roads, defense, courts, etc. But it is more useful when it stays in our hands, collectively. One irony of the situation is that when you lower taxes, revenue rises. The Laffer curve has been proven, most recently with the capital gains cut of the nineties, but also generally over the last century. When taxes go down, the economy grows, and even though the gubmint is getting a smaller piece of pie, the pie as a whole is much larger. Capital gains were cut by I think 33%, and over two years revenue from the lower tax rate increased by 50% or so. (I can't remember the exact numbers.) 

While the deficits that were run in the eighties were enormous and frightening, they are gone. That was not an intergenerational burden of any kind - but only because the economy was able to grow. 

Ross points out that drug programs and military budgets are intergenerational warfare - which is the point I made in my first post. Tax cutting is the only way that we can restrain spending. People freak over high deficits much more than over high taxes. (Strange, if you ask me.) If we were to freeze spending, then the government would have a decreasing share of the economy over time. And tax cuts are necessary every so often if for no other reason than inflation - as people creep into higher tax brackets, the taxes are being raised, if stealthily. (Of course, a flat tax would solve that problem.) 

Of course, there are other factors affecting the economy. There are various business cycles. The education of the populace, the world economy, money supply, labor laws, productivity, cultural attitudes to work, the general legal structure for commerce, patent law, etc. But these things remain relatively constant. Other variable factors can have a big impact as well. Oil price spikes can have effects similar to a tax hike - increasing everyone's cost of doing business, but that is out of politician's control. The Justice Department prosecution of Bill Gates was the proximate cause of the recent tech crash. When Bill Gates lost thirty billion dollars, the rest of the economy reacted to the sudden disappearance of all that money. Tax levels and Fed control of the money supply are two of the biggest levers in the economy - and the ones that our elected officials control. When these levers are set in a pro-economy position, things are good, the government is out of the way of our collective business. 

Tax cuts are good for the economy. They are good, because they keep money out of the hands of politicians, and restrain the growth of government. (PJ O'Rourke said that giving money to government was like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenager.) They are good, because it is right that people keep the money that they earn, and not deliver half of it over to thumb fingered nozzleheads in DC. Links in a minute.

I love Ohio. From WKYC-TV in Cleveland, comes this heartwarmer.

OHIO TURNPIKE -- A woman who claims she was breast-feeding while driving on the turnpike, has plead not guilty to multiple charges.
The Ohio highway patrol received a call that 29-year old Catherine Donkers, was driving with an infant in her lap.
A trooper tried to pull her over, but she ignored him and then exited the turnpike.
"The stop didn't occur until she exited at the 187th and then became caught up in the toll booth and that's where the officer was able to approach the car and talk to the driver," said Ohio Highway Patrol Officer, Lt. Chris Butts.
The trooper discovered the Michigan woman didn't have a license.
She's been charged with not having an operators' license, obstructing official business, and child endangering.

For those of you who know Ohio, Exit 187 on the Ohio Turnpike is Streetsboro. That's Johnny's neck of the woods.

The Guardian has an interesting editorial today about the non-looting of the National Museum in Baghdad and the willingness of many people in the press and public to a) believe the worst and b)believe the worst of Americans. See it here. It's an odd piece for the Guardian to run. Why? See this:

So, there's the picture: 100,000-plus priceless items looted either under the very noses of the Yanks, or by the Yanks themselves. And the only problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks.

Best line of all: "These days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed. "

Thanks to fark.com for the link. I get my news from Fark!