As IF Times

link Hard drugs just minutes away for Vancouver users, study finds | CTVNews.

It’s been very popular to push the notion that the decades long ‘war on drugs’ is lost and that the vast resources expended to battle the drug problem has been wasted.  No less than 4 previous attorneys generals and local mayors of all political stripes have come out in favour of revising tactics on addressing the drug problem.   Apparently, criminal penalties are not the answer.  Interestingly, this is exactly parallel to the decades long “war on fat” being waged all over North America.  Actually, greater amounts of money have been spent on that on-going campaign than has been spent on the war on drugs.   According to the website DrugSense.org, in the year 2010, $15 billion dollars was spent on the war on drugs (not sure how to validate this) whereas according to Business week, about $40 billion dollars is spent on the diet business every year.  www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/01/the_diet_indust.html

While it is not yet criminal to be obese, efforts are being made to legislate what people are allowed to eat.  We have Mayor Bloomberg of New York restricting salt levels and the size of soft drinks for example.  Comprehensive labels are required on all food items describing composition and caloric content.  As if that will dent McDonald’s sales. Let’s not forget the war on drunk driving.  Very few aspects of our modern culture are more heinous than being tagged as a drunk driver, especially if involved in a serious accident causing death.

It’s hard to see how people cannot see the consequences of unfettered social recklessness.   While on the one hand, we all want to be free to do as we please, the fact is, much of that freedom have consequences beyond our fleeting personal gratification.  If people want to pursue recreational drugs, then a libertarian society would say, let ’em.  The problem is that the consequences of such an attitude links to all kinds of undesirable outcomes like a long chain to a heavy ball.  Even without the threat of criminal records or incarceration, the undesirable health effects on the individual and their families is undeniable.  This is not victimless.  Not to mention the assorted undesirables who traffic in people’s misery.

If as a society, we really want people to live and let live, then people should be free to consume what they want without restriction or guilt.   If we’re going to decriminalize something as odious as drug use, then we should certainly stop the sanctimony regarding something as pleasurable as food and let people eat freely.  Why would we spend so much time and money demonizing fat people but be compassionate to drug users?  In the case of obesity, people don’t have the choice of eating or not, the only issue is amount.   At least there’s a social benefit to eating and drinking.  For instance, discovering fine restaurants or touring the wine country has a bit more cachet than a tour of a local meth lab.

The sinister nature of hard drug use is not just wild theory.  It has brought down nations (think Chinese opium wars ) and has destroyed productive lives.  I don’t recall that obesity has ever been the cause of  the wholesale collapse of nations.  With perhaps the exception of Michael Moore, no one is addicted to Big Macs. So it’s amusing that we have various and sundry celebrities and media types calling for the decriminalization of toxic chemicals and in some cases glamorizing the use of them, while we have government sponsored campaigns telling people what and how to eat.  Better fat than fried is my opinion.

In societies of consenting adults, people  should be free to do as they wish to themselves, but they must also suffer the consequences of their stupidity, sort of like skiing out of bounds or windsurfing in a hurricane or voting liberal.  No amount of warning will dissuade adults from pursuing harmful activities.  Think cigarette warnings. Think Barbra Streisand concerts.  But you still have to protect the kids.  Any society that doesn’t protect their kids will wind up having to be protected from them.  If anything, the war on drugs should escalate to deter those preying on kids.  But leave the food alone.

link Obama Promises He Will Win Virginia and the Election.

Those that care for this kind of thing will note that the media are ratcheting up for this year’s pivotal U.S. elections.  Accusations and claims upon the character of the respective protagonists are fired like bullets at a Palestinian wedding, which means randomly in the air and mostly harmless. Nevertheless, political spin-meisters from both sides are feverishly attacking each other in a political fight to the death.   The classic barbs are expectedly thrown; liar, cheater, stupid and of course corrupt.  Clearly there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules governing political scuffles.  But calling a politician a liar is pretty lame these days, it would be like calling Michael Moore a slob, it really has no shock value.

There is a lot at stake in this election; it is not a simple Coke vs Pepsi issue of personal preferences.  In the case of the election, choosing one over the other does say much about the value system  of the voter.  As is the case with professional sports teams, fans will be loyal to their side (mostly) regardless of how badly their team fares.  Tribalism is a strong human urge and manifestations of this via sports of all stripes are obvious for all to observe.  I mean seriously, what rational person can be a Leafs fan?  Politics is the same thing.  In the U.S. case, it’s not only about tribal associations, it’s also about money.  Both sides of the political divide will have their die hard adherents.  Regardless of actual performance records, the rabid supporters will champion their side despite any evidence of logic to do so, even to the point of their own negative self interest.  We would not find this in the animal world.  In the animal world, we don’t have the variable of money which can strangely pervert human activity.  So both sides of the political spectrum will have their hard wired supporters.

That leaves the group which the media refers to as, “the independents” , those that have no formal party or ideological affiliation.  This is a myth.  It is impossible not to have an established set of values  based on one’s personal life circumstances.  One cannot be ambivalent about issues concerning personal freedom and self determination, social responsibility, free markets and ability to progress in life.  The linked article describes that Obama promises to win the election.  Of course anything is possible.  His base will certainly be loyal.  But if the “independents” are to be counted upon to support him, we can only conclude that there must be parts of the country which don’t have access to current news.

On the one side, we have a guy who has successfully built up his life and the lives of hundreds of employees via job creation, has held public office and successfully run an Olympics, both without pay and who has experience in running and administering complex businesses.  He is for self determination and the reduction in the scope of government intrusion in people’s lives.  On the other side is a guy who has a murky past, whose supporters are peppered with felons, has never held a job in the private sector and has always nursed at the public teat.  He also nakedly endorses  the philosophy of governments being actively involved in peoples’ lives including what to eat.  If this stark choice between the candidates is a difficult one for the “independents”, we really are in trouble.

While it may have been fashionable to vote for the exotic guy 4 years ago, the passage of time since has shown that like the character Chauncey Gardner in the 1979 film “Being There”, there is no substance to the soaring rhetoric that mesmerized people back then.  Aside from political spin, there have been no achievements, none, made during his term in office which can be pointed to as advancing the plight of the American people.  Quite the contrary;  by any measure, economic, social, legal, international affairs, it has been a dismal and catastrophic 4 years.  So when the President promises that he will win the upcoming election, he is either pathologically delusional or believes the electorate is.