Posts from — September 2010

This video has been going around some of the internets lately and is worth a look:

Do you want to know more about Belgium? from Jerome de Gerlache on Vimeo.

I want some Belgian fries now.

From Jonah Lehrer’s post Why Money Makes You Unhappy:

What does experience-stretching have to do with money and happiness? The Liege psychologists propose that, because money allows us to enjoy the best things in life – we can stay at expensive hotels and eat exquisite sushi and buy the nicest gadgets – we actually decrease our ability to enjoy the mundane joys of everyday life. (Their list of such pleasures includes ”sunny days, cold beers, and chocolate bars”.) And since most of our joys are mundane – we can’t sleep at the Ritz every night – our ability to splurge actually backfires. We try to treat ourselves, but we end up spoiling ourselves.

I don’t know much about this area, but this theory seems to make sense. The term ‘spoiling’ does seem apt. If I think back to when I was in school, the kids whose parents had a lot of money did not seem to be any happier than those that did not. It’s not shocking that we’d see a similar phenomenon with adults.

Some people seem more sensitive to these qualitative differences, too. For example, some of my friends really enjoy expensive food or expensive cars, which is fine, but these things don’t really affect me much, so I don’t think I end up experiencing this effect in these areas.

Just saw this clip from Anderson Cooper.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAqarG8l6w)

Favorite quote from Cooper:

You also talked about victory mosques that Muslims built hundres of years ago on sites of military conquest. Don’t all religions do that? You’re Catholic, Rome was conquered from the pagans and their altars were destroyed so the Vatican could be built. Christian conquistadors and pilgrims to America all destroyed local religions and built their own houses of worship. Is the Vatican a victory church?

I wouldn’t follow the same line of argument that he does (as he seems to be arguing ‘victory religious structures are normal’ instead of ‘this isn’t a victory mosque’), but it’s still an interesting point. The rest of the interview is pretty good.

During this clip of CNN (shown on The Colbert Report), Wolf Blitzer says “The nation’s poverty rate jumped to 14.3% last year. [...] More than 43.5 million Americans are in need, that’s the highest number in half a century of recordkeeping.” while this is shown on the screen:

If you look at the chart, you can see that the poverty rate was over 15% in 1991 (the y axis is a bit hard to read here, but trust me). So, yes, the raw number is the highest it’s been in a half century, but that record has more to do with population growth than the raw poverty rate. If they hadn’t been showing that chart when Blitzer said this, I don’t think I would have noticed that subtle trick.

I don’t mean to minimize the significance of the poverty rate, but still, I think the rate is the really meaningful figure here.

It’s been nearly two months since I’ve written here.. back to work!

For those not in California, here’s a description of Proposition 19:

The act would authorize possession of one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption by people 21 and older, permit marijuana use in private residences or public places licensed for on-site consumption, and allow marijuana cultivation in private residences for personal use. It includes strong restrictions regarding the sale or use of marijuana to or around minors, and would permit city and county governments to regulate and tax it.
(source)

I’ve read or heard many arguments in favor of this proposition, but I haven’t seen much against it (I know, I know.. I live in San Francisco). Yesterday, the LA Times published an editorial coming out against the measure. I hadn’t seen some of these arguments before, but I still didn’t find them to be too compelling. Excerpts and responses follow:

[The] proposition is in fact an invitation to chaos. It would permit each of California’s 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana.

They do have a point that the complexity in implementation and enforcement isn’t ideal, but it seems like this is the most reasonable way to move forward. Communities that don’t want legalization can make their own rules, much like “dry counties” in the US can have strict rules about alcohol.

Regardless of how the vote goes on Nov. 2, under federal law marijuana will remain a Schedule I drug, whose use for any reason is proscribed by Congress. Sure, California could go it alone, but that would set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state.

Oh, no… conflict! There should be conflict. We need conflict. There is essentially zero debate about this at the national level right now, and if California can force the issue, then that would be great. President Obama replies to reasonable questions about this with chuckles and derision right now, but a change in California would force an actual debate to take place. Or at least it would force some yelling or something.

Finally, the editorial seems to go off the deep end:

Far from helping the state’s economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee’s job performance. Employers would no longer have the right to screen for marijuana use or discipline a worker for being high.

I read through the relevant parts of the proposition itself (pdf link) and can’t see how this would be the case. The relevant line from the proposition is:

Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

How would this be any different from alcohol? Employers don’t typically screen for alcohol, but can take action if it impedes job performance. To say that a worked could not be disciplined for being high seems like a ridiculous interpretation.

What’s most notable about this editorial is what it doesn’t discuss. It’s focused on legal technicalities, which are relevant, but basically ignores the big picture about legalization.

First, it ignores the whole basis for prohibition and fails to make any scientific arguments about differences between marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. I’ve yet to see anyone even attempt to make the claim that marijuana is more harmful. It’s not surprising that the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have given money in opposition of Prop 19.

Second, and more importantly, it ignores the grave human toll that the current drug policy has inflicted on the US and Mexico. By every measure, the war on drugs has been a failure. We’re paying an astronomical amount of money for a policy that has let drug prices go down, potency go up, our prisons fill up and a bloody war break out in Mexico. Marijuana usage in the US is higher than it is in The Netherlands and Portugal (where decriminalization has occurred).

This is a big deal for Mexico, though. I recently had a chance to hear former Mexican president Vicente Fox speak and he was quite forceful in his support for Prop 19 and made it clear that it would save Mexican lives. Just today I saw this picture and caption on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

A corpse lies on the floor next to a car outside a house in Acapulco, Guerrero state, Mexico on September 23, 2010. Seven people were killed Thursday with assault rifles AK47 during a clash between drug dealers. The Mexican government declared war on the drug cartels on December 2006, which has since left 22,743 people dead according to official records. By Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images.

(my emphasis)

22,748 is a staggering number. For comparison: in the US, a country with 3x the population and a lot of guns, we had under 13,000 total firearm-related deaths in 2007 (source). We’re paying billions of dollars for a policy that clearly isn’t accomplishing its goals, is filling up our prisons and is costing thousands of lives. But the LA Times is worried that it’ll make local laws too complicated. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.