Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Decriminalizing Drugs Would be HORRIBLE, right?!?! Riiiiiiight.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
------

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)

Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze–filled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis — the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.

"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.

But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.

At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.

"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs.

Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at the Cato Institute that "it's fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics — which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place — may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Freedom Fighters On Wheels- The Motorhome Diaries

Just earlier this month, a friend of mine named Pete Eyre, and his friends Jason and Tom, took the road to "search for freedom". They're traveling all across the country in their motor home, interacting and documenting their experiences with real life people. Whether it be in an inner city or a suburb similar to that of "Pleasentville", Pete and his team have taken it upon themselves to spread the message of liberty... in what they call, The Motorhome Diaries. Their journey also functions as a near-real time documentary", posting videos of their encounters with all sorts of people within minutes of occurrence (I hope when you guys finish your journey, someone compiles your videos and creates an actual documentary film!). You can check the constant updates at their website, provided below.

I encourage everyone to check out their website: http://motorhomediaries.com/

You can also become a fan of their facebook page at: 

There are many ways of going about spreading the ideas of liberty. One of the ways I've chosen to do it is through casual blogging. Some aspire to make change through legislature. However, these three men have DEDICATED THEIR LIVES (at least for the time being) to Liberty. I think what their doing is freakin' awesome, if I do say so myself. 

Although I cannot say for Jason nor Tom, I do not know them personally, I know Pete has been involved for quite some time. As an anarcho-capitalist, Pete spent some time as "Crasher in Chief" for a social networking website called Bureaucrash, in order to pursue The Motorhome Diaries. Based out of DC, Pete frequently traveled to Philadelphia and other cities just to show support and attend events for liberty-oriented organizations in the area. Pete is the epitome of a passionate man fighting for our individual freedoms!

In the time I've known Pete, I've gotta say that he's one of the nicest guys I've ever met. His character and enthusiasm should serve as an inspiration to us all. As a fellow freedom fighter, I'd like to say THANK YOU to all three of you!!

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Libertarian Marxism? ("Marketing" Libertarianism)

Libertarianism and Marxism... contradictory? Not necessarily.

Now before all of my fellow freedom fighters freak out on me, hear me out. Ever since I became active and involved in the Libertarian movement, I've heard terms such as "Libertarian Marxism" or "Libertarian Socialism". In the past, all I could do in response was either laugh or shake my head. How the HELL could there be such a thing as Libertarian Marxist, right? A collectivist society is the polar opposite of a free society. Well, tonight I caught a glimpse of the possibility... and it's been right under my nose.

In a Libertarian society, you'd be free to do essentially anything you'd like, as long as you don't prevent from someone else from doing the same. You could do anything you wanted, as long as you don't infringe upon other people's rights in the process. It'd be a society free from force or coercion of any kind.

I, like some of you, DESPISE the political philosophy that is Marxism, or any collectivist philosophy for that matter. Why? Well, if you honestly don't know what Marxism is, look it up. I'm not going to get into it (it'll just set me off on raging tangent). Just know that I hate everything it stands for.

So tonight, in a meeting for a Libertarian organization I'm a part of, we had an individual that described themselves as.... "Marx-ISH". The individual didn't know what Libertarianism was (which is precisely my problem when people call themselves something without having a broad knowledge of other political philosophies- POLIDENTITY CRISIS?!?!) and sat in on our discussion to learn a little bit more, which I commend them for.

When I asked her why she'd force people to live under a political regime that they didn't sign up for, she replied "Well, they wouldn't be forced." Basically, to sum it up in a nutshell, I helped her paint an image of a free society in which VOLUNTEERS would be permitted to practice Marxism... something I have NO problem with. That's the whole basis of Libertarianism.. do what you want, just don't force it on me. 

In a free society, a group of 2,000 (or whatever number) individuals, could buy a large piece of land somewhere, and set up their own society within it. It'd consist of people that voluntarily signed a contract to enter the community under specific conditions. When if people end up not liking their way of life? They can leave at anytime. Sure, there'd be all sorts of variables, disclaimers and exceptions.. YES, I know. This is a blog, I'm just describing a general idea. You want some scholarly, in depth analysis? Go read a CATO journal.

Now, is this necessarily Marxism? No, not really... the only term I could associate this with would be Libertarian Marxism (which sounds absolutely disgusting to me). But hey, it'd work. You want to live in a society of stagnation? Feel free. You want to live in a society in which you have virtually no freedom nor rights? Be my guest... just DON'T make me do it. Basically, any society can exist within a free society.

This concept had always been in the back of my mind, but I had never really grasped it until I spoke with this individual tonight. For some reason, it just became much more clearer. And by the way, this concept is very similar to what the Seasteading Institute, an organization founded by Patri Friedman, wants to do (except they want to do it on water... very interesting, go to their website).

Which brings me to my next point (brought up by G. Jenkin on the facebook group)... WHY DON'T LIBERTARIANS CAPITALIZE ON THIS?!?!!? This concept is soooo appealing to people. I must say, when it comes to marketing strategies, Libertarians are the worst. First off, Libertarians are anti-government, so there aren't nearly as many Libertarians running for public office as opposed to other parties (proportionally). Second off, Libertarians always rant about the free market, capitalism, etc... (yes, Im guilty of it to.. even on this blog, haha). We should do a better job of capitalizing on the specific issues that we DO agree with people on. For instance, the gay community. Most of the Gay community supported Obama throughout his campaign. I don't understand why... Democrats are a bunch of pansies when it comes to Gay marriage. They support civil unions but not marriage (lmao). Obama has turned his back on the Gay community. Libertarians are the only ones that do, and always have, support Gay marriage (marriage shouldn't even be a government institution anyways, as far as I'm concerned). In my opinion, the Libertarian Party has done a piss poor job of reaching out to the Gay community. If anyone is empathetic towards their struggle, it's definitely Libertarians.

And to any of you proud queers out there that are still supporting the Democratic party, have some self respect and stop taking their shit! Don't let them jerk you around.

/Rant over.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The FDA and their incompetence

Do you smoke cigarettes? Imagine if there were such a thing as a cigarette that didn't include all the health hazards. How many lives could would be saved by inventing such a thing? Well, guess what. There IS such a thing, but the government doesn't want you to have it.

The other week, The House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing the Food & Drug Administration to regulate all tobacco products. Good thing, right? Wrong. 

The "E-Cigarette" was introduced in 2004 by Chinese company Ruyan. E-cigarettes produce water vapor containing nicotine and the food additive propylene glycol. The tip of the battery-powered "cigarette" lights up when a user sucks on it, and the vapor looks like smoke, but it dissipates immediately and contains none of the toxins and carcinogens that are generated when tobacco burns. Unfortunately, the FDA thinks that if the e-cigarette was to hit the market, it'd only encourage people to smoke more, aiding them of their bad habits. Let's not forget that this is the same FDA that has approved nicotine gum, patches, sprays and inhalers.

How ridiculous is this?

Once again, the FDA proves itself incompetent and damaging. We would be far better off with the FDA gone. For those unfamiliar with these views, it may sound a bit extreme and shocking. But let's think about it logically: if the FDA ceased to exist, all sorts of benefactors would hit the market... FAST. The FDA's approval process takes an extremely long time, sometimes years. More lives are lost in the time span of the FDA approving a drug than if they were to approve something quickly. Some would argue that the absence of the FDA would result in a staggering increase of dangerous and life threatening drugs hitting the market. Nonsense. If you were a company manufacturing a drug, would YOU risk that sort of lawsuit? Of course you wouldn't. You're out for a to make money, not to hurt people. People benefitting from your product would be a good thing for you. You'd want to manufacture a product of the best quality, in hopes of gaining a profit and in hopes that your customers would return. 

Granted, a few life threatening drugs may enter the market, just as they do today. However, once the public sees that a particular drug is life threatening, that company is doomed and subject to a lawsuit. It's in the company's best interest to insure safety.

The government feels as if it knows what's good and bad for us, better than you and I do. The government should allow us to be responsible for ourselves. Nobody is going to like out for me like I look out for myself, and I don't need a nanny. 

Who knows? A cure for cancer may already be out there... it just hasn't been approved. If you were a terminally ill cancer patient, would you take the risk? I would.

EDIT: I posted this somewhere else... this was one of the responses I got:

"I actually agreed with you up until you started ranting about all the benefits of not having the FDA. That's just crazy. If it weren't for the FDA, company's would get away with murder. And you mentioned "a few life-threatening drugs" like that's something harmless. Those are lives you're talking about. Besides, the FDA does much more than just approve drugs"

My response:

My point was MORE lives are LOST due to LATE approval, as opposed to an EARLY APPROVAL for a harmful drug.

If a harmful drug is approved early, the side effect is nipped in the butt quickly. If there are deaths, there are few bc people realize it quickly.

If there are LIFE SAVING drugs that take YEARS for approval, HUNDREDS and possibly THOUSANDS of people would die WAITING for those drugs.

Yes the FDA does more than approve drugs. They do approve food as well. But it's the same concept. Companies have an incentive to provide you with quality food, because they want you to come back. They aren't going to put food out there that's gonna kill somebody. Why would they do that?

You say they'd "get away with murder"... they're not TRYING to murder anybody, lol. They're trying to make a profit. AND if somebody does die from their product, they'd be SUED and their company would crumble.


Their response: 

"It's not that simple. Do you remember Ripped Fuel? It was a vitamin that was sold over the counter at GNC's nationwide. Had the FDA not gone back and re-evaluated it, it would have never been taken off the shelves. We now know Ripped Fuel is a dangerous steroid, linked with all sorts of side effects, health hazards, and temporary insanity. What if the FDA wasn't around?

Have you ever read about what our country was before the FDA? Companies would advertise their products as being capable of something that it simply couldn't. A simple false advertisement threat is very easy to get around (Companies still get around it to this day). Did you know homosexuality was once considered a disorder and they even had pills people could take to overcome this? 

And besides, if it takes the drug companies years to develop a pill, we can't expect the FDA to have it approved in a week. It just doesn't work that way. I see what you mean about the extensive delays, but I actually think less people are killed now than the # of people which would be killed if the FDA wasn't around.

Who would blow the whistle on all these recalls of beef/ peanut butter, etc?"


Mine:

"Private research companies and non profit think tanks (even profitable companies for that matter), could take the role of the FDA. However, rather than forcing a recall, they can provide the dietary information necessary to an individual's decision (not saying the dietary information wouldn't be provided anyways, it's in the companies' best interest).

Which super markets and nutrition stores do the best and make more of a profit? The ones that sell organic foods and quality supplements. It's the store's responsibility to look out for its customers, and the individual's responsibility to be aware of what they're consuming.

I understand what you're saying... the whole recall thing for things like Ripped Fuel is a complex thing to dodge. All I can say is that sooner or later, this would've came up. With the elimination of the FDA, a market is created to provide the same information that the FDA once provided. The difference is, the FDA isn't competing with anybody and FORCES their conclusions upon the public. A private institution would have to compete with others and would allow you to make your own decisions. 

If we had 200 different FDA-like institutions (composed of both profitable and non-profits), the competition to increase research and do a more efficient job would run rampant, thus making technological and nutritional/health advancements speed up."


Theirs: 

"I know this may sound crazy but...

I trust the government more than private run companies (sometimes). I only say that because if the FDA disbanded like you said, I could really picture private companies being bought or sold to "help" a product pass inspections. You'd see a lot of the mess that's happening on Wall Street now. But if the government is running the show, at least you know they're not being financially motivated. The US government is already the richest "company" in the world"


My final post: 

"mmm...

No offense but it's pretty naive to say that the government isn't financially motivated. They go about it in a different way, though. They're money is handed to them from us... they don't have to earn it. Therefor the result of their financial motivations means "spending the least possible on the least expensive products", whereas a private company has to EARN the money it gets. The way they earn it is by providing a good product. 

And I'd argue that the Wall Street business going on now has A LOT to do with government intervention and the government butting their noses in the economy. The government and the economy should be separate, somewhat. Right now, you have subsidization and favors being exchanged. 

But anyways... all comes down to what you personally believe. I put my trust in private enterprise and the free market."

Monday, April 20, 2009

"A libertarian? So... is that like, a Democrat?"

*As I promptly turn on my old man voice*

If I had a nickel for how many times I've had this exact same conversation, I'd be rich!

Random Person: "Are you a Republican or Democrat?"
Dennis: "Well, I'm a little "L" libertarian. I'm philosophically libertarian."
Random Person: "Oh... a libertarian. So... is that like, a Democrat?"

..... *palm to the face*

Why is it that, unless you have a heavy interest in politics, nobody ever seems to know what a libertarian is? Don't people realize that there are many parties, not just Republican and Democrat? I guess it's not really their fault... Between our public education system, media, and your average household that rarely engages in a political conversation, the exposure just isn't there. It is partly the individuals fault for not seeking to inform themselves, but who is the REAL culprit?

I'd say it's our own government. Unfortunately, unlike dozens of other countries, the United States does NOT have proportional representation. What we have is a Single Member Plurality system, which basically means "winner takes all". Candidates of the Libertarian Party and other third party candidates receive a percentage of the vote every year, so why shouldn't they have some representation in our government? Fact is, the United States government doesn't feel like that minority percentage is worthy of representation. 

This, however, is the reason the United States is essentially a two-party system that's looking more and more like a SINGLE PARTY system every day. The American people, or any people for that matter, shouldn't be stuck with having to choose from the lesser of few evils. Nobody seems to be happy with the direction our country is headed, Republicans nor Democrats. Options are a wonderful thing! Variety is a wonderful thing! I love that fact that when I go to McDonald's (the Devil's food), I can choose between a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, or even a Double Quarter Pounder! (please metabolism, don't quit on me)

Which brings me to my conclusion, that I believe MOST people would align themselves with Libertarianism, if only they knew what the hell it was. Statistics say otherwise, but I refuse to believe that the logical concepts of freedom and liberty are really that unappealing to people.

/Rant over.

LEGALIZE IT!: A 4/20 Memoir

As a young libertarian, it's only natural that I'm in favor of legalization for nearly all substances, including marijuana. No, I'm not a stoner. No, I don't sit on the green grass of a college campus, surrounded by trees, playing the guitar while smoking a doobie (although, that doesn't sound half bad). In fact, I've never smoked in my life.

It's unfortunate that "4/20" typically consists of bare-footed hippies running around saying, "NOBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY OWN BODY!!" I agree. I don't have any problems with bare-footed hippies running around making fools of themselves. I believe you're free to do as you please, as long as you don't infringe on anybody else's right to do the same. I'm also against force or coercion. However, most people don't happen to feel this way. It's either their way, or the highway.

I feel like "4/20 holiday" is a day that goes to waste. Why spend all day lighting up and complaining? You can do that any day. Rather, 4/20 should be a day of education. Of actually EXPLAINING why you believe in legalization. It should be a day of proving to the same people who believe that global warming is a myth (to what extent may be exaggerated, but it's obvious it's happening), that legalization of marijuana wouldn't only be economically beneficial, but that it's the RIGHT and MORAL thing to do. 

Instead, young people usually parade around enhancing the stereo type that users or advocates are a bunch of radicals. This is not only the wrong way to go about legalization, but it's harmful to the movement, alienating and driving opponents even further away. 

This post isn't meant to explain WHY I'm for legalization... that's a whole different can of worms. Rather, this post is meant to express my discontent with the tactics and strategies of the legalization movement. Actually, it'd be a bit of an overstatement to call them "tactics" or "strategies"... sometimes it seems as if you don't think much at all.

For more information as to WHY I'm for legalization, this interview with Milton Friedman summarizes many of my beliefs. He does a thorough job of explaining the pros and the one possible con.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

Who else is having a polidentity crisis?!?!?

It seems as if most people, specifically young people, are having a polidentity  crisis now-a-days. People THINK they're liberal, people THINK they're conservative, the list goes on...

I wouldn't say I'm having a polidentity crisis. Although, I did go through a stage of "finding myself" politically. Around the age of 16, I was heavily interested in the ideas of Marxism. I was fascinated with Eldridge Cleaver and Soul On Ice was my favorite book (I still think it's a wonderful piece of work). However, I never labeled myself as being a Communist or Marxist. I realized that I was going through the stage of finding myself politically, and establishing where exactly I stood on the political spectrum.

Not long after, I discovered the ideas of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (thank God), and finally found a political philosophy of which I could relate with on nearly any aspect. The difference between what I went through at 16 and the polidentity crisis that many young people are experiencing today, is that I never called myself a "Communist". I never called myself a "Marxist". Hell, I didn't even call myself a libertarian until two years after I was introduced to the philosophy. It seems as if college students everywhere are calling themselves "liberal" (and when I say "liberal", I mean it in the Obama sense), yet they are skeptical about tax increases. I don't mean to specifically call out the liberals, because the conservatives are just as guilty... if not, EVEN MORE GUILTY! Conservatives moan and whine about Obama's policies and regulatory administration, when Dubya had one of the most regulatory administrations in the history of the United States! Where were they then? Were they complaining then, or are they just hostile towards our recently inaugurated Democratic president? It's all mind boggling...

To stop my rant abruptly, these are the reasons I started this blog ^. Hopefully I'll be able to provide some insight as to what these various political philosophies ACTUALLY stand for. 

If you're going through a polidentity crisis, don't fret!! The first step is to realize that you are (haha, sounds like an addiction). I'll try to help you get through it, while spewing a bit of my own bias at you ;)