Category: reason

Much of the labeling fight that’s going on these days is not so
much about a consumer’s right to adequate information as it is
about a select group forcing the government to unfairly stigmatize
foods they don’t like and that they’re competing against. Take
Washington State’s mandatory GMO labeling ballot initiative, I-522,
which goes before voters in the state next week. A recent report by
Washington State’s independent Academy of Sciences concluded that
I-522 would likely raise grocery prices in the state. Instead of
mandatory labeling, writes Baylen Linnekin, consumers who support
GMO farming or don’t care about GMOs should be free to seek out
foods they want. And if there’s enough support among those
consumers for private “Contains GMO” labeling, then those labels
will likely appear.

View this article.

Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard
Kerik served three years in federal prison for tax fraud. Upon
release he gave an interview to the Today show as he
embarked on a new crusade informed by his experiences:
Fighting against mandatory minimums. Politico breaks down the
interview:

“These young men, they come into the prison system. First-time,
non-violent offense, a low-level drug offense: The system is
supposed to help them. Not destroy them,” Kerik said in an
interview on NBC’s “Today” show that aired on Friday.

Kerik criticized the federal mandatory minimum system for
putting people away for 10 years for 5 grams of cocaine, handing
NBC’s Matt Lauer a nickel.

“When I came into the system, I didn’t realize it’s a nickel.
Hold it. Do you feel the weight of it? Feel it?” Kerik said. “I had
no idea that for 5 grams of cocaine, which is what that nickel
weighs, you could be sentenced to 10 years in prison. … That’s
insane.”

As a former police commissioner, Kerik said “no one in the
history of our country” has served prison time with his background,
and that you have to be behind bars to understand what it’s
like “to be a victim of the system.”

That’s a brilliant idea! We should put more law enforcement
officials and politicians behind bars for a couple of years.

The interview can be watched
here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

In their
2012 book Marijuana
Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan
Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the impact
of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most
important thing no one knows. Are cannabis and alcohol complements,
so that drinking can be expected to increase along with pot
smoking? Or are they substitutes, implying that more pot smoking
will mean less drinking? For analysts attempting to calculate the
costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, the question matters a
lot, because alcohol is considerably more dangerous than marijuana
by most measures. If the two products are complements, states that
legalize marijuana can expect to see more consumption of both,
exacerbating existing health and safety problems. But if the two
products are substitutes, legalizing marijuana can alleviate those
problems by reducing alcohol consumption.

Reviewing the evidence in the Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Montana State University economist D. Mark
Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find
that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments
generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are
substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more
marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off
sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and
marijuana as substitutes.” Another study found that legalizing
marijuana for medical use is associated with a drop in beer sales
and a decrease in heavy drinking. These results, Anderson and Rees
say, “suggest that, as marijuana becomes more available, young
adults in Colorado and Washington will respond by drinking less,
not more.”

That conclusion is consistent with earlier research
in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana
laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities.
That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving
ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact
that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home
(resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as
well.

Anderson and Rees also consider the impact of legalization on
pot smoking by teenagers. Looking at data from the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey from 1993 through 2011, they see “little evidence
of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use
of marijuana among high school students.” Narrowing the focus to
California after medical marijuana dispensaries began
proliferating, they find “little evidence that marijuana use among
Los Angeles high school students increased in the mid-2000s.” It
actually went down from 2007 and 2009, then rose from 2009 to 2011,
but that increase was mirrored in three comparison cities (Boston,
Chicago, and Dallas) without dispensaries.

Anderson and Rees note that UCLA drug policy expert Mark
Kleiman, who co-wrote Marijuana Legalization and has
been advising Washington’s cannabis regulators, recently
described a worst-case scenario for legalization featuring an
increase in heavy drinking, “carnage on our highways,” and a
“massive” increase in marijuana consumption among teenagers.
“Kleiman’s worst-case scenario is possible, but not likely,” they
conclude. “Based on existing empirical evidence, we expect that the
legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington
will lead to increased marijuana consumption coupled with decreased
alcohol consumption. As a consequence, these states will experience
a reduction in the social harms resulting from alcohol use. While
it is more than likely that marijuana produced by state-sanctioned
growers will end up in the hands of minors, we predict that overall
youth consumption will remain stable. On net, we predict the
public-health benefits of legalization to be positive.”

I noted
Rees and Anderson’s research on marijuana legalization and car
crashes in Reason last year.

In their
2012 book Marijuana
Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan
Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the impact
of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most
important thing no one knows. Are cannabis and alcohol complements,
so that drinking can be expected to increase along with pot
smoking? Or are they substitutes, implying that more pot smoking
will mean less drinking? For analysts attempting to calculate the
costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, the question matters a
lot, because alcohol is considerably more dangerous than marijuana
by most measures. If the two products are complements, states that
legalize marijuana can expect to see more consumption of both,
exacerbating existing health and safety problems. But if the two
products are substitutes, legalizing marijuana can alleviate those
problems by reducing alcohol consumption.

Reviewing the evidence in the Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Montana State University economist D. Mark
Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find
that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments
generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are
substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more
marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off
sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and
marijuana as substitutes.” Another study found that legalizing
marijuana for medical use is associated with a drop in beer sales
and a decrease in heavy drinking. These results, Anderson and Rees
say, “suggest that, as marijuana becomes more available, young
adults in Colorado and Washington will respond by drinking less,
not more.”

That conclusion is consistent with earlier research
in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana
laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities.
That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving
ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact
that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home
(resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as
well.

Anderson and Rees also consider the impact of legalization on
pot smoking by teenagers. Looking at data from the Youth Risk
Behavior Survey from 1993 through 2011, they see “little evidence
of a relationship between legalizing medical marijuana and the use
of marijuana among high school students.” Narrowing the focus to
California after medical marijuana dispensaries began
proliferating, they find “little evidence that marijuana use among
Los Angeles high school students increased in the mid-2000s.” It
actually went down from 2007 and 2009, then rose from 2009 to 2011,
but that increase was mirrored in three comparison cities (Boston,
Chicago, and Dallas) without dispensaries.

Anderson and Rees note that UCLA drug policy expert Mark
Kleiman, who co-wrote Marijuana Legalization and has
been advising Washington’s cannabis regulators, recently
described a worst-case scenario for legalization featuring an
increase in heavy drinking, “carnage on our highways,” and a
“massive” increase in marijuana consumption among teenagers.
“Kleiman’s worst-case scenario is possible, but not likely,” they
conclude. “Based on existing empirical evidence, we expect that the
legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington
will lead to increased marijuana consumption coupled with decreased
alcohol consumption. As a consequence, these states will experience
a reduction in the social harms resulting from alcohol use. While
it is more than likely that marijuana produced by state-sanctioned
growers will end up in the hands of minors, we predict that overall
youth consumption will remain stable. On net, we predict the
public-health benefits of legalization to be positive.”

I noted
Rees and Anderson’s research on marijuana legalization and car
crashes in Reason last year.

Belgian lawmakers are
considering a bill that, if made law, would allow children under 18
to end their own lives.

According to
kirotv the bill, which has popular support, would require the
parents of the child who wants to end their life to consent and for
an expert to deem the child capable of understanding their decision
before being helped to die.

The Washington Post explains some of the arguments put
forward by advocates of the bill and the current status of adult
euthanasia in Belgium:

Advocates argue that euthanasia for children, with the consent
of their parents, is necessary to give families an option in a
desperately painful situation. But opponents have questioned
whether children can reasonably decide to end their own lives.

Belgium is already a euthanasia pioneer; it legalized the
practice for adults in 2002. In the last decade, the number of
reported cases per year has risen from 235 deaths in 2003 to 1,432
in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available. Doctors
typically give patients a powerful sedative before injecting
another drug to stop their heart.

Carine Boucher of the European Center for Bio-ethics, believes
that children lack the maturity to request euthanasia.

From
UPI:

Two thirds of Belgians reportedly favor the euthanasia
expansion. Euthanasia deaths in Belgium rose to 1,432 in 2012
compared to 235 in 2003.

But critics think the proposal goes too far.

“The child does not have the maturity to get married or to buy
alcohol or to buy cigarettes if he is 14. Now we are saying that
because he is suffering, he might have the possibility to ask for
euthanasia,” said Carine Boucher of the European Center for
Bio-ethics in Brussels. “Who will give the suggestion to the child
that one of the solutions is euthanasia? A child doesn’t know what
euthanasia is. A child doesn’t know what death is.”

The Post’s reporting on the proposed bill comes after a

transsexual was helped to die in Belgium last month after
failed sex-change operations.

Children are a difficult subject for libertarians, who put a lot
of value in an individual’s ability to know what is best for them
and in their ability to make choices about what to do with their
body. In many jurisdictions some people under the age of 18 are
deemed mature enough to drive, sign up for organ donation,
join
the military (with
parental consent), and have sex, but are not deemed mature enough
to vote or smoke.

Below is a discussion between Prof. David Friedman and Stefan
Molyneux on libertarian parenting:

So, readers, what
should those under 18 be prohibited from doing, and how should this
be decided? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

• A
  gunman opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport.
  Information is still sketchy in the media, but reports say a TSA
  agent was killed. The gunman has been reported both in custody and
  dead and several others were injured.
• A federal appeals court has struck down the mandate that health
  insurance provided by employers must cover
  birth control.
• Nasdaq is having more
  tech problems, which shut down trading today.
• A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan has
  killed a Taliban leader, which may well sabotage peace efforts
  between Pakistan and the terrorist group.
• More
  part-time college professors are joining unions, which will
  help inflate that education bubble quite nicely.
• 
  Turn your clocks back an hour on Sunday because the government
  told you to.

Get Reason.com and Reason 24/7
content widgets for your
websites.

Follow us on Facebook
and Twitter,
and don’t forget to sign
up for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.

You can’t keep your insurance if you like it
under Obamacare, because you’re too ignorant to understand what’s
good for you. Or at least that’s the argument we’ve been hearing
from a lot of folks on the left — an argument that pivots from
“common good” to soft authoritarianism. President Barack Obama is
all in, as well, claiming that he was merely guilty of forcing
Americans to pick a “Ferrari” health care plan over a “Ford” one.
But as David Harsanyi observes, is it really “picking” if you’re
forced?

View this article.

You can’t keep your insurance if you like it
under Obamacare, because you’re too ignorant to understand what’s
good for you. Or at least that’s the argument we’ve been hearing
from a lot of folks on the left — an argument that pivots from
“common good” to soft authoritarianism. President Barack Obama is
all in, as well, claiming that he was merely guilty of forcing
Americans to pick a “Ferrari” health care plan over a “Ford” one.
But as David Harsanyi observes, is it really “picking” if you’re
forced?

View this article.

Police in Salem, MA—or as it’s often referred to, Witch City,
USA—have charged a psychic studio with unlawfully providing curse
removal services. Fatima’s psychic studio, which
has been offering a Romani form of fortune-telling to tourists for
two decades, was caught violating a
city ordinance which states that psychics may only forecast the
future and read the past. Warding off evil spirits and protecting
patrons from bad auras is strictly forbidden.

So when a New York resident issued a formal complaint against
Fatima’s, alleging that he paid a psychic $16,800 over several
weeks for placing a curse shield on him, police closed in. In an
investigation led by Detective Sergeant James A. Page, police
learned that the studio’s fortune-teller license was long expired.
They forced the studio to shut its doors and make a court
appearance.

The Boston Globe
reports:

But on Monday night, when Fatima’s owner Harry Mitchell went
before the city’s licensing board to ask for reinstatement, the
lapse worked in Fatima’s favor. Page…said that without a valid
license, the shop was not technically operating under the
fortuneteller’s ordinance at the time of the cash-for-curse
incidents and therefore could not be charged with violating it.

Instead, he issued two $100 fines for operating without a
license. The board granted a probationary license for Fatima’s to
resume operation until the end of the year, provided they promise
not to meddle in curses again and work with the New York man to
come up with some kind of reimbursement.

Mitchell had
explained to the Salem Licensing Board earlier this week that
he had already settled the dispute with the customer and that he
would return the money.

Detective Page told the Boston Globe that while he
thought Fatima’s was making money off deception and fraudulence, it
would be difficult for police to pursue criminal charges since
“people are embarrassed and they’re not going to come forward.”

In response to the allegations, Christian Day, a local warlock
who owns two fortune-telling shops and has appeared on Penn
& Teller’s Bullshit, said:

If they’re a fraud, then we’re all frauds, and all religion is a
fraud. They’re not regulating the priest who absolves you of your
sins and tells you to put some money in the collection basket, or
the old lady who sends all her money to Pat Robertson.

If customers are looking for a reputable place to get their
palms read, they might just want to avoid Fatima’s completely: the
business has received a 1.5 star rating on both Tripadvisor
and Yelp
with reviews such as, “I had a palm reading and she didn’t even
look at my palm,” “Fraudulent Gypsies!!!,” “She told me I was
having a baby!!!! I had a hysterectamy 12 years ago!!!!!,” and
perhaps most tellingly, “Don’t waste your money. Do some
research.”

Almost nothing about Obamacare’s
federal exchange system is working. It’s almost impressive how
comprehensive the federal system’s technical failures are. Just
about every part of the system that has been reported on seems to
have problems, many of which are quite serious.

• The account creation system necessary to even start the process
  of using the exchanges basically didn’t work at all when the site
  launched. Administrators appear to have improved this functionality
  since launch, but Jeff Zients, who is overseeing the
  troubleshooting project,
  says it’s still not working for about 10 percent of users.
• The vast majority of people who can create accounts still can’t
  complete the enrollment process. According to Zients, only about 30
  percent of users are able to get through the system.
• Anyone who successfully logs in gets to the point of shopping
  for specific plans on the exchanges may see prices displayed
  incorrectly, as the system has
  had problems
  calculating eligibility for public subsidies for
  insurance.(Subsidy calculation has also
  proven
  difficult for
  several state-run exchanges.) 
• Anyone who decides to browse for plans without logging in first
  is also
  liable to see incorrect prices. The “shop and browse” feature
  installed to mitigate problems caused by the broken account system
  often displays the wrong prices, because it lumps together premiums
  for anyone who is 49 and under, and anyone who is 50 or older.
  Everyone under 50 is provided prices for a 27-year-old, even though
  prices for people in their 40s might be quite a bit higher.
• Several exchanges are having
  trouble accurately
  displaying provider and network information for the plans on
  offer. This is not a big problem for the federal exchanges yet
  because they are still so dysfunctional, but if the state-run
  exchanges are any indication, it could eventually create headaches
  for people who want to know which doctors and hospitals are
  attached to which plans. 
• Even with just a trickle of individuals making it all the way
  through the process, insurers are
  not getting correct enrollment information from the exchanges.
  As a result, many are reviewing applications manually. If larger
  numbers of applications ever make it through the system, that won’t
  be sustainable. And there may be longer term problems as well: If
  enrollment data is transmitted incorrectly, people could eventually
  find out they didn’t enroll in the plan they selected, or didn’t
  actually enroll at all.
• The small business exchanges aren’t fully up and running
  either. Enrollment in those exchanges, already delayed once, was
  delayed again, the administration
  announced this week.
• The federal exchanges were supposed to seamlessly interface
  with multiple state Medicaid programs, but that functionality,
  originally delayed until November 1, was
  also further delayed last week. And at this point, federal
  officials won’t say when they expect that functionality will be
  complete.
• Security testing for the federal exchange system was never
  completed. An
  internal memo warned that too little testing “exposed a level
  of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk.” (The temporary
  security authorization under which the site is operating also
  
  appears to violate the administration’s own web security
  guidelines.)
• The Spanish language version of the website has been
  delayed indefinitely.
• The “data hub” that routes information between multiple
  databases has gone
  down on
  multiple occasions due to hosting facility outages.

It’s a near-total failure. All the major segments of the
system—the user end, the insurer end, the data-routing in the
middle, the plan information on display, the connections with
state-run legacy systems—are either problem-plagued or broken
entirely.