I attended the recent Future of Money forum in order to explore new money technologies and the implications they might have for criminal activity. I tried to discuss with fellow attendees my conclusion that the imminent abandonment of paper money and coins will also mean the end of drug trafficking, among a whole list of other crimes and societal scourges. But even amongst such talented minds, I encountered elitist snobbery and cavalier dismissals of my concept. I suppose that if these people haven't themselves thought of the idea, they must discredit anyone else who can think of them. To be fair, there were some kinder souls who nonetheless clung to skepticism as they tried to digest the simplicity of my argument. Their unshakable belief is that drug criminals "will always find a way!" But they had to admit that they could not themselves conceive of a way for criminals to pierce the armor of cashlessness.
Some of the other critics made pompous pronouncements for which, in their own magnificent minds, there could be no rebuttal. So they made themselves unavailable for debate once they had "deflated" my argument. One self-inflated commentator pronounced that drug addicts would simply use bitcoins. As I've said before, this digital money requires a computer or smartphone (neither of which will long be in the possession of any heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine addict), a bitcoin address, and ultimately a traceable identity. At the moment, bitcoins are not all that fungible and their values are fluctuating. Moreover the entire success of bitcoin commerce relies upon a level of trust that could never exist with any large scale criminal activity in the system, not to mention that the bitcoin treasury does not contain $400 billion of "wealth," which is the estimated size of the worldwide drug trade. Bitcoins still have to be converted into dollars, and vice versa.
Still others pointed to bizarre money laundering schemes as irrefutable proof that drug trafficking could not be stopped. This, of course, misses my entire point that it is impossible to launder money if there is no anonymous cash in circulation. It is not exactly accurate to speak of "money" laundering, for it is actually "cash" laundering. The process is designed to disguise the origin of wealth obtained illegally. To be of any use to the criminal, it must be deposited into a bank account, or some other similar arrangement, in order to spend it. If the source is in any vehicle other than cash, it is not anonymous. Bartering with contraband might be anonymous, but it is impossibly cumbersome and totally unusable in any complex economy, especially one as large as the drug trade.
Tide laundry detergent was cited as an example of drug trade ingenuity. Thieves are stealing bottles of the liquid soap from stores and then exchanging them for drugs. Police refer to this as liquid gold and have observed drug traffickers walking down the street holding 6 or 7 bottles of Tide. What will the drug dealer do with these bottles of detergent that are worth $5 - $10 apiece on the black market? Since he cannot use them personally to any significant extent, he must go into the business of selling them. It should be obvious that he cannot pay drug workers in Columbia, Afghanistan, or in meth labs here at home with laundry detergent, unless these people also wish to become Tide distributors. So the drug dealers will have to set up a warehouse, a virtual or actual store, and a distribution plan to deliver billions of dollars worth of laundry detergent to consumers who might not always need to purchase this product. Remember, that's BILLIONS of dollars! And these payments to the criminal will have to be made in some form of digital (and traceable) currency. Laundry detergent is a commodity and is subject to the laws of economics, just as are the drug commodities. Without the use of some form of currency, this remains just a very inefficient (and ultimately unsustainable) bartering arrangement. The stores from which the Tide was stolen will eventually take steps to stop the thefts. So all of the infrastructure created to fence the stolen detergent will become obsolete rather quickly. The proprietors of the stolen Tide "store" might get some attention from Proctor & Gamble and the police. Explaining how they acquired such vast quantities of detergent will be uncomfortable, to say the least. And in a cashless world, all of their financial dealings will be visible to law enforcement forever.
It should be obvious to most people that users of methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin must steal in order to finance their drug habits--they don't have rewarding careers! Such drugs make them incapable of gainful employment. If they take contraband (electronics, jewelry, etc.) to drug dealers, the same problems arise in transforming these items into usable currency. In today's world, the pawn shop is what services this need. Because stolen merchandise is not easy to market, the pawnbrokers cannot afford to pay very much for them. A thief is not likely to get more than 10% of the value of the merchandise being offered. Not only must he show verifiable identity to the pawnbroker, but he can receive only a check or a gift card in return (assuming a cashless world). The thief can then take the gift card to a store and purchase a bottle of Tide or take the gift card to the drug dealer. In any scenario one might wish to concoct, the transaction always remains traceable. All of the steps in the theft of goods, the sale of drugs, and the journey of the money can be followed with ease. So, does Charlie Sheen want the world to know that he gave Whitney Houston cocaine (assuming the unverified possibility that he could have done so)? There is no evidence that he was in any way involved: but someone was. And in a cashless world, we would all get to find out who it was. I really suspect that this would have a chilling effect on the drug trade. But maybe I'm misguided.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Legalizing Drugs is a Crime
John Stossel recently claimed that 90% of addicts end their addictions spontaneously and that it is really nobody's business what someone puts into his own body. I met him recently at a TFAS conference in Sonoma. There was no time to engage in meaningful dialogue but he had reflex responses to my analysis that (1) drug trafficking cannot exist in a society that has no anonymous cash and (2) society has a duty to outlaw certain drugs.
In his skepticism, he proposed that drug traffickers could merely circumvent the cashless obstacle by pretending to be selling towels [sic], entirely missing my point of anonymity. The transaction will be recorded for eternity in the digital world, and Mr. Drug Dealer will have had to establish a facade of a legitimate business in order to claim that he is selling legitimate merchandise (and not the drug contraband that is his true commodity). Not only will his inventory and business model inevitably be revealed as fraudulent, but every transaction he has ever transmitted will be linked to a bank account that can then be traced to every corner of the world where the "money" travels. In order to circumvent these impenetrable barriers against such subterfuge, the drug dealer could pretend instead to be offering personal services--a massage or fashion advice, for example. Mr. Drug Dealer would not have to show an inventory in this scenario, but he will still have to have a business license and to file tax returns. So, he can be selling cocaine to Whitney Houston confident that his true business is invisible. But when she drops dead in the bath tub and her estate goes into probate, the executor will be looking at a string of peculiar payments to Mr. Drug Dealer. The public, in its outrage, might ask the uncomfortable question as to who it was that sold Whitney her lethal drugs. In a cashless world, even Barney Fife would surmise that there had to be some financial trail in her financial records which have been made infallibly permanent by the inherent nature of cashless commerce. Moreover, Mr. Drug Dealer will likely also have some less well-heeled clients who, in their desperate need to buy drugs that have made them incapable of honest work, have committed some crimes to secure credits in the digital world. If even only one of these crimes comes under scrutiny of law enforcement (the pawned Rolex is identified as stolen and the money dispensed to the thief for its redemption has become linked to Mr. Drug Dealer), all of those alleged massages or all of that fashion advice paid for by Whitney will be seen as very suspicious. Will they not? And by the way, Mr. Drug Dealer has a criminal record. Doesn't he? Or perhaps Mr. Stossel thinks that drug cartels will have ready access to upstanding college graduates with impeccable credentials who are eager to become drug purveyors.
The problem is that skeptics come to unjustified conclusions without really examining the anatomy of the drug trade. The basic street deal requires the swift, surreptitious, and anonymous transfer of defined fungible wealth for the illicit product. There is nothing but cash that can fulfill these requirements. And cash is about to become extinct for the very mundane motive of convenience. Other skeptics still insist that bartering will do the trick. There are so many flaws with bartering that it is hard to describe them all. The biggest of these is that bartered contraband is not fungible, not to mention that significant numbers of itens will not be anonymous. So when Mr. Drug Addict comes to Mr. Drug Dealer with some sparkling jewelry, shiny metal, or electronic devices, what will Mr. Drug Dealer do with them? How much are such items worth? If a bag of heroin costs $25, how many bags will the contraband buy? If you're going to eliminate the pawnbroker who normally services the contraband, each drug dealer will have to estimate the value of the item and how much he'll be able to get for it at some time in the future. Mr. Drug Dealer will have to have the skills of a pawnbroker. How will he accumulate the knowledge and experience to possess such talents? Then where will he store and market these items? And what happens when even one item is identified by police as being stolen? The honest cops might get a search warrant for financial records; another variety of cop will demand some tribute. But the the rogue cop will then have some explaining to do when he shows up at work in a luxury car that would seem to be beyond a policeman's salary. And even if he maintains his propriety, the digital money he extorts from the drug dealer will be visible whenever someone like the IRS gets wind of it. And if you possess stolen wealth that you can never safely spend, what good is it to you? Before dismissing the cashless strategy as foolish naivete, you must place your thinking into the digital world. You must think through all of the ramifications of having no anonymity.
Of course, many become terrified that without cash they will be vulnerable to government tyranny. HELLO! WAKE UP! BIG BROTHER IS ALREADY HERE! CASH DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM A ROGUE GOVERNMENT! Such outraged souls invariably admit that they already almost never use cash--it's too inconvenient and expensive! Even if some of them do use cash, they still do also have bank accounts and credit cards. You cannot be in the mainstream of society without such digital footprints.
The most intransigent skeptics will insist that criminals will always find a way. They say, even though they themselves cannot conceive of any plausible scheme to defeat the armor of cashlessness, that there is just too much money involved for criminals to simply walk away. Somehow the creative genius of the free market will find a solution. But I say, "Not in this world!" Such commerce would have to exist in an alternate universe which could never communicate with ours. And the whole purpose of such crime is to seize wealth in the mainstream economy. That simply cannot be accomplished without anonymous fungible cash.
Mr. Stossel also claims that people have a right to put anything they want into their bodies and that the rest of us should just leave them alone. Having the government with power to regulate drugs will lead to complete control over every aspect of our lives. However, he fails to recognize the inherent paradox of America. Our Founding Fathers set out to create a society based on personal freedom. But in order to have such a society, it must be organized by a government that exists for the purpose of limiting individual liberty. Even Mr. Stossel agrees that we have to give up a large number of individual liberties in order for society to work. Personal property rights cannot exist without a government preventing other citizens from exercising their free will to steal what they covet. We will not tolerate speech that incites riots or condone actions which abuse others. We must have a government that forces people to obey traffic laws, pay taxes, and serve in the military services. Government has the power to exercise extraordinary power over our lives for public health disasters. People do not have the freedom to infect others with communicable diseases. Concerns about the indigent have been prominent in societies from the beginning of history. If you have people in your midst who do not provide for themselves through productive work, they will necessarily find illegitimate means to survive. It hardly seems necessary to expound on the logical conclusions of this obvious economic principle. The point is, that having a government places us all on a slippery slope. While on the one hand we cherish individual freedom, on the other we must surrender to government control to ensure a civil society. Making drugs legal will have unintended consequences which have been revealed to us from the past. The lesson seems lost on many as to what life was like when these drugs were not prohibited. While holding out the "magnificent" solution Portugal has experienced by decriminalizing drugs, what will happen to Lisbon in the next few years? Will opium dens start to open up? Will Coca Cola start selling beverages with cocaine again and advertizing the soothing benefits to be enjoyed from their beverage? Will we care when another Whitney Houston drops dead and no one can be prosecuted for it? Are we going to have heroin packets sold over the counter at convenience stores? No. No. Of course not. It will be regulated like alcohol sales. Adults will be able to go to the liquor store and purchase beer, wine. whiskey, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, PCP, crack, methamphetamine, and heroin at affordable prices. A brisk business of drug paraphernalia will sprout up to serve the demands to use such drugs effectively. More potent concoctions will be developed through research as the market expands. Life will be sweet, except for the useless addicts who become permanently disabled by their addictions. Children will never have access to these drugs. But won't they see the adult behavior of having "drug fun" and wish to emulate it? Or maybe we can agree that it is a legitimate function for a government in a free society to stop drug use from becoming a burden on the rest of us.
Cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin will still leave many people completely useless. And it certainly becomes the business of everyone else when addicts become a burden on society. Addiction to such drugs precludes the ability to support oneself with any means other than crime. An addict might start off with a job, a family, and some assets; but these will be rapidly squandered as the drug behavior advances--as it always does. Examples such as Robert Downey, Jr. and Charlie Sheen are illustrative of the dynamics involved. They will end up on the streets unless the addiction is terminated by treatment or by death. So even if such drugs were legalized, addicts could not purchase the drugs through gainful employment--they would still have to steal to get these drugs at any price. Eventually do-gooders would say that it is social justice to give these drugs to these unfortunate "victims" for free--it's basic compassion. But then what do they do for food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare? Simple! We give them these things, too! In this way, they are not lying in doorways or on public sidewalks while urinating and defecating in a stupor. If you think that this is hyperbole, this actually happened in the vestibule of my office not long ago. The addict couldn't wait to get to some private place and shot up his heroin in this very public location and then proceeded to drop his pants and defecate during his intoxication. The San Francisco Fire Department was very helpful. Although the addict declined to be escorted to the hospital and was very annoyed at being disturbed by concerned citizens who believed that he was in danger, our emergency responders were well-equipped to hose down the scene and to apply disinfectants to the area. If drugs are legal, what would prevent an addict from shooting up in the food court of your local mall? Again, if you think this is absurd exaggeration, I have witnessed this on several occasions already. No one interrupted the addicts, who were apparently confident that they would be undisturbed. They were literally cooking up their drugs in front of everyone, loading their syringes, and then injecting themselves. I was the only one staring. My mouth was agape for only the first encounter of this sort. I'm used to it now. Think this is fabrication? There was a body lying on the sidewalk here for three days before anyone bothered to summon police. It's nothing unusual in San Francisco for people to be lying on the sidewalk--so who knew this one was actually dead? There's nothing unusual about drug use here either. Take a walk down Union Street on any given day and smell the cannabis wafting though the air.
But drug addiction is even more destructive than John Stossel considers. Do you want your airline pilot, your heart surgeon, or the driver of the 18-wheeler next to you on the highway to be using cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine? Is their drug use any of your business? You bet it is! How about the electrician installing the wiring in your house? How about the plumber connecting the gas lines to your water heater or furnace? How about the iron worker assembling the suspension bridge over which you commute to work? How about the auto mechanic who services the brakes on your car? How about the crack addict who sets a fire in the hotel room next to yours? Do you get the picture?
There is even another scourge from drug use which no one but me has considered. Have you ever seen a drunk at a party stumbling, mumbling, and slobbering all over himself--all the while fancying himself as being sophisticated, entertaining, and sexy? His perceptions are severely distorted. But the alcohol produces only temporary delusions of grandeur. Remorse, shame, and regret usually occur by the next day's hangover. Sanity returns with a lot of pain. But that might not be the case with things such as marijuana (cannabis). I say this because I have observed acceptance of this type of recreational drug as being enormously more prominent among liberals than with conservatives. Think of the angry, ranting elitists who heap ridicule upon anyone with a different opinion. These masterminds are convinced that they alone possess the truth in life as they embrace rather absurd socialist concepts which history has proven time and again to be wrong. The entire concept of social justice is a prime example.
Van Jones is an unapologetic communist whom I viewed in a broadcast proudly wishing for uniform social equality (with him in charge, of course!). He invited his audience to consider a fishbowl with every person's identity imprinted on a piece of paper contained therein. "Just imagine," he intoned, "reaching in and pulling out any slip of paper and having the exact same life as everyone else!" It wouldn't matter at all which piece you got--your life would be the same (except for his elevated status). His audience cheered, as I recall, transfixed with the absolute brilliance of such social justice. So, in this paradise, why would anyone need a job? If you could never have any more than anyone else no matter how hard you worked, and you could never have any less than anyone else no matter how little you did in life, why bother to work? History is replete with experiments of social justice--all of them have failed. Utopia has been visited many times--but everyone flees from it when given the chance (except for the masterminds who run it).
So, if we legalize marijuana and it turns out that I am correct--repeated use makes people delusional--what's the harm? If everyone is peaceful and loving--what's wrong with that? Is Susan Sarandon your idea of loving compassion? She scares me! How about Bill Maher? He ridicules people mercilessly. He's obscenely cruel. And these attitudes are typical of liberals--most of whom openly promote marijuana use. Think of Rosie O'Donnell. Would you like her to be at your Thanksgiving dinner? So, marijuana users do not turn out to be very nice people--do they? And if everyone is expanding his mind with cannabis, who's growing the wheat for our bread? The Little Red Hen? Remember--we would have social justice and everyone gets the same share of the bread as everyone else! If everyone is riding in the wagon, who's pulling it? Socialism is so intelligent--isn't it?
In his skepticism, he proposed that drug traffickers could merely circumvent the cashless obstacle by pretending to be selling towels [sic], entirely missing my point of anonymity. The transaction will be recorded for eternity in the digital world, and Mr. Drug Dealer will have had to establish a facade of a legitimate business in order to claim that he is selling legitimate merchandise (and not the drug contraband that is his true commodity). Not only will his inventory and business model inevitably be revealed as fraudulent, but every transaction he has ever transmitted will be linked to a bank account that can then be traced to every corner of the world where the "money" travels. In order to circumvent these impenetrable barriers against such subterfuge, the drug dealer could pretend instead to be offering personal services--a massage or fashion advice, for example. Mr. Drug Dealer would not have to show an inventory in this scenario, but he will still have to have a business license and to file tax returns. So, he can be selling cocaine to Whitney Houston confident that his true business is invisible. But when she drops dead in the bath tub and her estate goes into probate, the executor will be looking at a string of peculiar payments to Mr. Drug Dealer. The public, in its outrage, might ask the uncomfortable question as to who it was that sold Whitney her lethal drugs. In a cashless world, even Barney Fife would surmise that there had to be some financial trail in her financial records which have been made infallibly permanent by the inherent nature of cashless commerce. Moreover, Mr. Drug Dealer will likely also have some less well-heeled clients who, in their desperate need to buy drugs that have made them incapable of honest work, have committed some crimes to secure credits in the digital world. If even only one of these crimes comes under scrutiny of law enforcement (the pawned Rolex is identified as stolen and the money dispensed to the thief for its redemption has become linked to Mr. Drug Dealer), all of those alleged massages or all of that fashion advice paid for by Whitney will be seen as very suspicious. Will they not? And by the way, Mr. Drug Dealer has a criminal record. Doesn't he? Or perhaps Mr. Stossel thinks that drug cartels will have ready access to upstanding college graduates with impeccable credentials who are eager to become drug purveyors.
The problem is that skeptics come to unjustified conclusions without really examining the anatomy of the drug trade. The basic street deal requires the swift, surreptitious, and anonymous transfer of defined fungible wealth for the illicit product. There is nothing but cash that can fulfill these requirements. And cash is about to become extinct for the very mundane motive of convenience. Other skeptics still insist that bartering will do the trick. There are so many flaws with bartering that it is hard to describe them all. The biggest of these is that bartered contraband is not fungible, not to mention that significant numbers of itens will not be anonymous. So when Mr. Drug Addict comes to Mr. Drug Dealer with some sparkling jewelry, shiny metal, or electronic devices, what will Mr. Drug Dealer do with them? How much are such items worth? If a bag of heroin costs $25, how many bags will the contraband buy? If you're going to eliminate the pawnbroker who normally services the contraband, each drug dealer will have to estimate the value of the item and how much he'll be able to get for it at some time in the future. Mr. Drug Dealer will have to have the skills of a pawnbroker. How will he accumulate the knowledge and experience to possess such talents? Then where will he store and market these items? And what happens when even one item is identified by police as being stolen? The honest cops might get a search warrant for financial records; another variety of cop will demand some tribute. But the the rogue cop will then have some explaining to do when he shows up at work in a luxury car that would seem to be beyond a policeman's salary. And even if he maintains his propriety, the digital money he extorts from the drug dealer will be visible whenever someone like the IRS gets wind of it. And if you possess stolen wealth that you can never safely spend, what good is it to you? Before dismissing the cashless strategy as foolish naivete, you must place your thinking into the digital world. You must think through all of the ramifications of having no anonymity.
Of course, many become terrified that without cash they will be vulnerable to government tyranny. HELLO! WAKE UP! BIG BROTHER IS ALREADY HERE! CASH DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM A ROGUE GOVERNMENT! Such outraged souls invariably admit that they already almost never use cash--it's too inconvenient and expensive! Even if some of them do use cash, they still do also have bank accounts and credit cards. You cannot be in the mainstream of society without such digital footprints.
The most intransigent skeptics will insist that criminals will always find a way. They say, even though they themselves cannot conceive of any plausible scheme to defeat the armor of cashlessness, that there is just too much money involved for criminals to simply walk away. Somehow the creative genius of the free market will find a solution. But I say, "Not in this world!" Such commerce would have to exist in an alternate universe which could never communicate with ours. And the whole purpose of such crime is to seize wealth in the mainstream economy. That simply cannot be accomplished without anonymous fungible cash.
Mr. Stossel also claims that people have a right to put anything they want into their bodies and that the rest of us should just leave them alone. Having the government with power to regulate drugs will lead to complete control over every aspect of our lives. However, he fails to recognize the inherent paradox of America. Our Founding Fathers set out to create a society based on personal freedom. But in order to have such a society, it must be organized by a government that exists for the purpose of limiting individual liberty. Even Mr. Stossel agrees that we have to give up a large number of individual liberties in order for society to work. Personal property rights cannot exist without a government preventing other citizens from exercising their free will to steal what they covet. We will not tolerate speech that incites riots or condone actions which abuse others. We must have a government that forces people to obey traffic laws, pay taxes, and serve in the military services. Government has the power to exercise extraordinary power over our lives for public health disasters. People do not have the freedom to infect others with communicable diseases. Concerns about the indigent have been prominent in societies from the beginning of history. If you have people in your midst who do not provide for themselves through productive work, they will necessarily find illegitimate means to survive. It hardly seems necessary to expound on the logical conclusions of this obvious economic principle. The point is, that having a government places us all on a slippery slope. While on the one hand we cherish individual freedom, on the other we must surrender to government control to ensure a civil society. Making drugs legal will have unintended consequences which have been revealed to us from the past. The lesson seems lost on many as to what life was like when these drugs were not prohibited. While holding out the "magnificent" solution Portugal has experienced by decriminalizing drugs, what will happen to Lisbon in the next few years? Will opium dens start to open up? Will Coca Cola start selling beverages with cocaine again and advertizing the soothing benefits to be enjoyed from their beverage? Will we care when another Whitney Houston drops dead and no one can be prosecuted for it? Are we going to have heroin packets sold over the counter at convenience stores? No. No. Of course not. It will be regulated like alcohol sales. Adults will be able to go to the liquor store and purchase beer, wine. whiskey, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, PCP, crack, methamphetamine, and heroin at affordable prices. A brisk business of drug paraphernalia will sprout up to serve the demands to use such drugs effectively. More potent concoctions will be developed through research as the market expands. Life will be sweet, except for the useless addicts who become permanently disabled by their addictions. Children will never have access to these drugs. But won't they see the adult behavior of having "drug fun" and wish to emulate it? Or maybe we can agree that it is a legitimate function for a government in a free society to stop drug use from becoming a burden on the rest of us.
Cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin will still leave many people completely useless. And it certainly becomes the business of everyone else when addicts become a burden on society. Addiction to such drugs precludes the ability to support oneself with any means other than crime. An addict might start off with a job, a family, and some assets; but these will be rapidly squandered as the drug behavior advances--as it always does. Examples such as Robert Downey, Jr. and Charlie Sheen are illustrative of the dynamics involved. They will end up on the streets unless the addiction is terminated by treatment or by death. So even if such drugs were legalized, addicts could not purchase the drugs through gainful employment--they would still have to steal to get these drugs at any price. Eventually do-gooders would say that it is social justice to give these drugs to these unfortunate "victims" for free--it's basic compassion. But then what do they do for food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare? Simple! We give them these things, too! In this way, they are not lying in doorways or on public sidewalks while urinating and defecating in a stupor. If you think that this is hyperbole, this actually happened in the vestibule of my office not long ago. The addict couldn't wait to get to some private place and shot up his heroin in this very public location and then proceeded to drop his pants and defecate during his intoxication. The San Francisco Fire Department was very helpful. Although the addict declined to be escorted to the hospital and was very annoyed at being disturbed by concerned citizens who believed that he was in danger, our emergency responders were well-equipped to hose down the scene and to apply disinfectants to the area. If drugs are legal, what would prevent an addict from shooting up in the food court of your local mall? Again, if you think this is absurd exaggeration, I have witnessed this on several occasions already. No one interrupted the addicts, who were apparently confident that they would be undisturbed. They were literally cooking up their drugs in front of everyone, loading their syringes, and then injecting themselves. I was the only one staring. My mouth was agape for only the first encounter of this sort. I'm used to it now. Think this is fabrication? There was a body lying on the sidewalk here for three days before anyone bothered to summon police. It's nothing unusual in San Francisco for people to be lying on the sidewalk--so who knew this one was actually dead? There's nothing unusual about drug use here either. Take a walk down Union Street on any given day and smell the cannabis wafting though the air.
But drug addiction is even more destructive than John Stossel considers. Do you want your airline pilot, your heart surgeon, or the driver of the 18-wheeler next to you on the highway to be using cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine? Is their drug use any of your business? You bet it is! How about the electrician installing the wiring in your house? How about the plumber connecting the gas lines to your water heater or furnace? How about the iron worker assembling the suspension bridge over which you commute to work? How about the auto mechanic who services the brakes on your car? How about the crack addict who sets a fire in the hotel room next to yours? Do you get the picture?
There is even another scourge from drug use which no one but me has considered. Have you ever seen a drunk at a party stumbling, mumbling, and slobbering all over himself--all the while fancying himself as being sophisticated, entertaining, and sexy? His perceptions are severely distorted. But the alcohol produces only temporary delusions of grandeur. Remorse, shame, and regret usually occur by the next day's hangover. Sanity returns with a lot of pain. But that might not be the case with things such as marijuana (cannabis). I say this because I have observed acceptance of this type of recreational drug as being enormously more prominent among liberals than with conservatives. Think of the angry, ranting elitists who heap ridicule upon anyone with a different opinion. These masterminds are convinced that they alone possess the truth in life as they embrace rather absurd socialist concepts which history has proven time and again to be wrong. The entire concept of social justice is a prime example.
Van Jones is an unapologetic communist whom I viewed in a broadcast proudly wishing for uniform social equality (with him in charge, of course!). He invited his audience to consider a fishbowl with every person's identity imprinted on a piece of paper contained therein. "Just imagine," he intoned, "reaching in and pulling out any slip of paper and having the exact same life as everyone else!" It wouldn't matter at all which piece you got--your life would be the same (except for his elevated status). His audience cheered, as I recall, transfixed with the absolute brilliance of such social justice. So, in this paradise, why would anyone need a job? If you could never have any more than anyone else no matter how hard you worked, and you could never have any less than anyone else no matter how little you did in life, why bother to work? History is replete with experiments of social justice--all of them have failed. Utopia has been visited many times--but everyone flees from it when given the chance (except for the masterminds who run it).
So, if we legalize marijuana and it turns out that I am correct--repeated use makes people delusional--what's the harm? If everyone is peaceful and loving--what's wrong with that? Is Susan Sarandon your idea of loving compassion? She scares me! How about Bill Maher? He ridicules people mercilessly. He's obscenely cruel. And these attitudes are typical of liberals--most of whom openly promote marijuana use. Think of Rosie O'Donnell. Would you like her to be at your Thanksgiving dinner? So, marijuana users do not turn out to be very nice people--do they? And if everyone is expanding his mind with cannabis, who's growing the wheat for our bread? The Little Red Hen? Remember--we would have social justice and everyone gets the same share of the bread as everyone else! If everyone is riding in the wagon, who's pulling it? Socialism is so intelligent--isn't it?
Monday, April 16, 2012
THE ANSWER IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US
I appear to be the only person in the world to have discerned this obvious solution. While increasing recognition is awakening to the inevitability of a cashless society (http://www.economist.com/node/8702890 and http://www.david-wolman.com/p/books_16.html), no one seems to comprehend that once cash is eliminated (and it will be), there can be no drug trafficking, illegal employment, bank robbery, counterfeiting, kidnapping for ransom, terrorist financing, illegal guns, gangs, or almost any property crime. Without a trace of pain to the taxpayer, we balance the budget and experience unprecedented prosperity. Tax rates plummet, healthcare costs diminish, tax revenues skyrocket, government spending dwindles, prisons empty, and the poor are uplifted as never before in history. Do you think that the electorate might just embrace a candidate who has the vision to offer to them an end to misery?
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Benefits of Central Health Care?
Cancer Care Grand Rounds
A new study suggests higher U.S. oncology spending is 'worth it.'
Wall Street Journal - April 12, 2012
A persistent health-care myth is that the U.S. system is uniquely wasteful versus the European countries that spend far less per patient as a result of tight government control. Only the establishment experts who spread this myth will be surprised, but new research shows American patients are often getting more value—better outcomes and longer lives—in return for those extra dollars.
More remarkable still, the news arrives via the policy journal Health Affairs, in a symposium on the cost and quality of U.S. cancer care. This is like the Vatican saying go ahead, worship the graven images and false idols.
Tomas Philipson of the University of Chicago and colleagues compare U.S. oncology spending over the period from 1983 to 1999 (the last year for which data are available) with that in 10 European Union countries. Costs were lower overall overseas and grew by 16%, while they grew by 49% in the U.S. Yet U.S. cancer mortality rates are lower, despite higher cancer rates, and "We found that the value of survival gains greatly outweighed the costs, which suggests that the costs of cancer care were indeed 'worth it,'" Mr. Philipson et al. write.
Throughout the entire period, U.S. cancer survival gains were larger, reaching 11.1 years over 1995 to 1999 against 9.3 years in the EU. The researchers then compared the U.S. and EU gains using conservative, commonly accepted measures for the value of a statistical life, less the cost of the care. The U.S. comes out ahead by $598 billion. In other words, though the U.S. spends more, patients and society benefit far more.
Over 1995-1999, each $100 increase in per capita cancer spending—approximately $20,000 per cancer patient—was associated with another 2.3 years of life for the average patient. The authors are also careful to show that these results reflect real patient outcomes. Another myth is that U.S. survival rates are an artifact of the time of diagnosis, a "lead-time bias" that comes from more screening and earlier cancer detection, but without any improvement in life expectancy. Mr. Philipson's method controls for such bias.
The U.S. system is relatively more expensive because diagnosis and treatment are much more intensive, and doctors tend to leverage the latest therapies and drugs against one of the world's leading killers. While U.S. health care could obviously be far more efficient, most of its dysfunctions are the result of government's perverse incentives.
The sophisticates who pine for the allegedly more enlightened forms of European rationing and price controls—for more perverse incentives—would do well to peruse the Health Affairs symposium. Mr. Philipson's paper suggests those are good ways to stop anticancer progress in its tracks, or reverse it altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
