Jacob Sullum reports on the Atlasphere that:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that drug offenders account for about 25 percent of local jail inmates, 21 percent of state prisoners and 55 percent of federal prisoners. Since 1980 the number of drug offenders in state prisons has increased by 1,200 percent, more than four times the increase in violent offenders. … According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, however, only one in ten federal crack offenses involves violence or the threat of violence. … Research conducted by criminologist John DiIulio, economist Anne Morrison Piehl, and sociologist Bert Useem in the late 1990s found that many, if not most, people sentenced for drug crimes in New York, Arizona, and New Mexico were “drug-only offenders,” meaning the only crimes they’d ever committed involved the voluntary exchange of politically incorrect intoxicants for money.
Continue reading ‘Drug Prohibition is Immoral’
I took the liberty of a small break after a crazy semester and the time to prepare for the coming, also crazy, one. Hence, my posting was a bit sparse these past few weeks. But all should return to normal rather soon. In the meantime, I shall briefly vent my outrage at Illinois’ smoking ban that went into effect January 1. The act is conveniently referred to as “an act concerning public health” and bans smoking from bars, restaurants and other public places. Of course, the ban is predicated upon the much touted ills of second-hand smoke. The Act itself states that
Secondhand tobacco smoke causes at least 65,000 deaths each year from heart disease and lung cancer according to the National Cancer Institute.
But the question is under what circumstances is that really true? Most studies investigating the effects of second-hand smoke looked at people who are exposed to it on a daily and prolonged basis, such as people who live with smokers, and did not always find that it did harm them. In fact, one long-term study published in the British Medical Journal found that its results
do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
Never mind that many restaurants had already become smoke-free without any force of law but simply because their customer base appreciated it enough. Small bars and restaurants relying on smoking clientèle will most likely be hit hardest by the economic effects of this ban. But most importantly, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you don’t want to be in a smoky environment, don’t frequent such an establishment. And, those working in places where many people smoke also have a choice. They don’t have to work there if they think it will harm their health. The fact is, the mechanisms of the market were working in the direction of making many places smoke-free and would have left enough places offering the opportunity to smoke for those people who choose to go or work there. The aftertaste of this law in my mouth is worse than cigarettes.
In response to recent minimum wage hike discussions, US Congressman Bill Sali introduced the Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act. The bill proposes to reduce gravity by 10%, thus reducing the weight of all Americans.
As a freshman Congressman, the likely passage of this measure has taught me a new principle: The force of Congress can be brought to bear and justified to suspend those natural laws which would otherwise control important matters. The well-intentioned desire of Congress to help the poor apparently will not be restrained by the rules and principles of the free market that otherwise do restrain American businesses and workers. Apparently, Congress can change the rules that would otherwise affect the affairs of mankind.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have asked my staff to draft a measure I call the Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act. Since Congress will apparently not be restrained by the laws and principles that naturally exist, I propose that the force of gravity by the force of Congress be reduced by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, that will result in immediate weight loss for every American. It will immediately help reduce obesity problems in America. Weight loss will also help to promote the overall health of Americans as we have been vigilantly advised by our health care.
If Congress can defy the laws of the market, why not defy the laws of physics? I think that is a great idea. It will finally rid me of those last ten pounds I have been meaning to lose for quite some time now. After all, we all know two things: (1) the minimum wage really helps poor people, (2) generally, you can lose weight without diet and exercise.
I checked out the Drew Carey Project. You can access a preview by entering the password “sizzle” (although it is only good until 10/8/07). I didn’t realize Drew Carey was a free market guy. So I poked around to find who else big and famous has seen the light.
John Stossel comments on the Wisconsin’s State Legislature passing “Healthy Wisconsin” which will give “free” health care to everyone in the state. As usual, he is right on the money. Although I am not sure if the progressives (btw, what a contradiction in term) will learn the right lesson from this example, since they have not learned the lesson from other countries’ failed experiments with socialized medicine. Perhaps, they do not want to learn? Perhaps for some of them everyone having the same and equal access to health care (even if bad, and it will be worse than what we have now and definitely worse than what we could have in a truly market driven system) is more important than the life saving and improving innovations, and the cost reductions a free market health care system brings. But, on the other hand, could one really suppose them to be that misguided?
Recent Comments