iftttwall

Among the eight
“enforcement priorities” that the Justice Department
expects states to address in exchange for prosecutorial
restraint vis-á-vis newly legal pot businesses is “preventing
drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use.” Last week I
noted an article in which two economists, D. Mark Anderson of
Montana State University and Daniel Rees of the University of
Colorado, predicted that, on balance, the “public health
consequences” of marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington
will be positive, mainly because more pot smoking will be
accompanied by less drinking. The same issue of the Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management includes a less
sanguine take on the question by Rosalie Liccardo Pacula,
co-director of the RAND Corporation’s Drug Policy Research Center,
and University of South Carolina criminologist Eric Sevigny. Pacula
and Sevigny warn that research in this area is complicated by the
fact that legal restrictions on cannabis in states with medical
marijuana laws vary across states and over time within the same
state:

We find that states restricting broad access to medical
marijuana by requiring annual registration of patients have lower
marijuana prevalence rates among youth and adult[s] and lower
admissions to treatment than states without such requirements.
However, states allowing home cultivation and legal dispensaries
are both positively associated with recreational use and, in
particular, heavy use.

Pacula and Sevigny also note that states with legally protected
dispensaries tend to see statistically significant drops in price
and increases in potency—which strike me as benefits of
legalization but look like costs to analysts who worry that
cheaper, stronger pot will magnify the hazards associated with
marijuana consumption. 

On the question of whether marijuana and alcohol are substitutes
or complements, Anderson and Rees think the former is more likely,
while Pacula and Sevigny say the evidence “remains mixed.”
Although they acknowledge that the hazards associated with
marijuana itself pale beside the cost of treating its production,
sale, and use as crimes, Pacula and Sevigny worry that the cost of
increased alcohol consumption could swamp the benefits of
legalization if more pot smoking is accompanied by more
drinking:

Although there are small recognized health costs associated with
using marijuana and treating dependence, these costs are dwarfed in
comparison to the criminal justice savings associated with
legalizing and regulating the substance. Even if consumption were
assumed to rise by 100 percent, the savings of liberalizing
policies would dwarf the known health costs associated with using
marijuana. However, all potential savings associated with marijuana
legalization could be entirely erased, and tremendous losses
incurred, if alcohol and marijuana turn out to be economic
complements, particularly for young adults.

Notably, both Colorado and Washington plan to tax marijuana at

a much higher rate than alcohol, which is just the opposite of
what Anderson, Rees, Pacula, and Sevigny presumably would
recommend. Anderson and Rees note the disparity (citations
omitted):

The current excise tax on liquor sold in Colorado is 60.26
cents/l, which represents roughly 3 percent of the retail price of
Jim Beam Whiskey purchased by the bottle. In comparison, Colorado
is set to impose a 15 percent excise tax and a 10 percent special
sales tax on marijuana sales. Washington is considering taxing
producers, sellers, and buyers at a total rate of 75 percent.

Today Colorado voters are deciding whether to approve the
proposed excise and sales taxes, both of which can be raised as
high as 15 percent. Based on how those taxes will affect retail
prices, they are 10
times as high as the state tax on distilled spirits, by
far the most heavily taxed alcoholic beverage. And that’s before
considering local marijuana taxes, which in Denver (assuming voters
approve) will add another sales tax of up to 15 percent.

I am no fan of social engineering through taxation. But it’s
pretty clear that Colorado and Washington are not even trying to
set tax rates based on the relative hazards posed by these
products.

No one would accuse climate researchers
James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley of
moderation when it comes to banging the climate crisis drum. The
four have now issued an open
letter challenging the broad environmental movement to stop
fighting nuclear power and embrace it as a crucial technology for
averting the possibility of a climate catastrophe by supplying
zero-carbon energy. From the letter:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate
change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and
deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your
organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of
renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power
threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and
deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of
addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is
growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of
developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only
increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas
emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere
as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play
roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot
scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the
scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically
possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the
real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that
does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

Well, yes. Just last week, I argued that solar and wind power
are “Not
Ready For Prime Time Renewable Energy Technologies.”

The whole letter makes interesting reading.

Back in 2009, I pointed out “The
Cultural Contradictions of Anti-Nuke Environmentalists,” in
which they were proud of the fact that they had killed off the
nuclear power industry. Had the industry developed as projected,
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions that they worry about would already
be at least one-third lower than they are now.

One other observation: Using current technologies, nuclear
socialism is more likely to result in adequate energy supplies than
is solar socialism.

For more background, see Reason contributor John
McClaughry’s
review of Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the
Future.

No one would accuse climate researchers
James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley of
moderation when it comes to banging the climate crisis drum. The
four have now issued an open
letter challenging the broad environmental movement to stop
fighting nuclear power and embrace it as a crucial technology for
averting the possibility of a climate catastrophe by supplying
zero-carbon energy. From the letter:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate
change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and
deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your
organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of
renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power
threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We call on your organization to support the development and
deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of
addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is
growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of
developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only
increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas
emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere
as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play
roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot
scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the
scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically
possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the
real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that
does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

Well, yes. Just last week, I argued that solar and wind power
are “Not
Ready For Prime Time Renewable Energy Technologies.”

The whole letter makes interesting reading.

Back in 2009, I pointed out “The
Cultural Contradictions of Anti-Nuke Environmentalists,” in
which they were proud of the fact that they had killed off the
nuclear power industry. Had the industry developed as projected,
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions that they worry about would already
be at least one-third lower than they are now.

One other observation: Using current technologies, nuclear
socialism is more likely to result in adequate energy supplies than
is solar socialism.

For more background, see Reason contributor John
McClaughry’s
review of Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the
Future.

Condé Nast, the globally renowned media publisher
that produces magazines like Glamour, The New Yorker, and
Wired, announced late last month that it
will no
longer offer its internship program. The decision comes in
response to a lawsuit filed by two former interns, Lauren Ballinger
and Matthew Leib; in June, the interns
sued Condé Nast for months of backpay, alleging that the
publisher violated federal and state labor laws.

The Wall Street Journal
reports:

Mr. Leib alleged that the New Yorker paid him well below minimum
wage—in stipends of $300 to $500—for each of the two summers he had
worked at the prestigious weekly, where he reviewed and proofread
articles. Ms. Ballinger alleged in the complaint that she was paid
$12 a day for shifts of 12 hours or more at the fashion
magazine.

The case is still pending, but Condé Nast’s decision has been
made. The current crop of interns will not be affected – they will
just be the program’s final participants.

The details of what Condé Nast will do moving forward are
unclear though. Will they replace the internships with more
competitive paid positions? Or will the publisher simply reshuffle
their existing workforce? The company has been silent since the
announcement.

Reactions have so far been mixed. Numerous former Condé Nast
interns have lamented that the elimination will mean lost
opportunities for future students. “It’s disappointing and kind of
ridiculous that it had to come to this,” Rachel Rowlands, a senior
at the University of Michigan who interned at Glamour
Magazine this summer,
told USA Today. “I had an amazing experience at
Condé Nast, and I honestly feel bad that other college students
won’t be able to have the same experience that I did.”

Dylan Byer, a media reporter at Politico who completed
internships at The New Yorker,
told the New York Times that he valued his experience
and disagrees with the lawsuits. For people to accept the terms of
an internship and then turn around and retroactively sue their
employer seems “disingenuous,” he said.

Yet another former intern told Buzzfeed that her
internship prepared her for the reality that the
print media industry doesn’t pay very well, even for full-time
employees:

“A few years [after completing my Condé internship], I
interviewed for a job as a features assistant
at Vogue… an editor asked me what my parents
did before telling me how much money I’d make: $25,000 a year.”

Indeed, a brief perusal of Condé Nast’s average salaries shows
that Editorial Assistants
don’t even crack $30,000 per year.

Even those advocating against unpaid internships expressed their
frustration and apparent surprise at the news.

The
Fair Pay Campaign, a student-run organization with the rallying
cry “No-one should have their dreams denied because they can’t
afford to work for free,”
tweeted:

SHAME on Condé Nast for ending their internship program, instead
of paying a living wage.#payyourinterns

Likewise, the lead attorney representing Leib and Ballinger,

told the Wall Street Journal:

Our goal isn’t to end internship programs. Our goal is to…make
sure they’re legal, either by paying minimum wage or making sure
they meet the criteria the Department of Labor has spelled out.

Condé Nast is the first major firm to eliminate its internship
program since the
flurry of unpaid intern lawsuits sprung up this summer.
However, lawyers and

employers are predicting that many firms may start to cut
their programs – or offer just a few paid positions instead of many
unpaid ones. So despite advocates’ desire to open doors for
struggling students, it seems the
“Great Unpaid-Intern Uprising” may result in employers
closing off opportunities altogether. 

Shooting you in the face is one
of the few awful things the Transportation Security
Administration’s employees can’t do to you.

But one guy loses his mind (maybe) and kills one and obviously
the next thing that’s going to happen is a fearmongering response
designed to create more jobs and give the most intrusive, invasive
government agency we’ve created (because at least the National
Security Agency can’t physically fondle you) more power.
Politico notes the TSA union’s response:

The fatal shooting of Gerardo Hernandez and the ensuing gunfight
at LAX called attention to a long-running debate over the powers of
TSA, whose screeners aren’t considered law enforcement officers
even though many of them wear badges. The 39-year-old Hernandez was
the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty in the agency’s
history.

Federal prosecutors have filed homicide and other charges
against 23-year-old Los Angeles resident Paul Ciancia, whom
authorities have suggested was specifically targeting TSA
employees.

Both lawmakers and the Obama administration have called for
reviewing airport security procedures after the shooting spree. But
union officials are already offering a concrete proposal: create a
new category of TSA agent in addition to the 45,000 existing
screeners. People in the new positions would be law enforcement
officers, who could carry handcuffs and firearms as well as make
arrests.

Union leaders say the enhanced status would help protect an
unfairly demonized workforce, as well as security checkpoints like
the one where Friday’s mayhem began.

One person’s “unfairly demonized workforce” is another person’s
stolen
iPads and
parking passes, brutal
humiliation, ignorance-based
ethnic discrimination and nearly
10,000 complaints of misconduct over two years.

It doesn’t seem likely that this rather extreme response is
going to get much of anywhere. CNN reports
objections from Congress members, police unions protecting
their turf, and even former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge thinks it’s not
a good idea:

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called the idea of
arming officers a “a big mistake.”

“You have literally hundreds and hundreds of armed police
officers roaming every major airport in America. And I don’t think
arming another 40 or 50 or 60 thousand people … would have
prevented this incident from happening,” he said.

During CNN’s rather terrible coverage of the shooting on Friday,
some talking head (possibly with the union or TSA, but I missed the
identification) complained that TSA agents are “sitting ducks” in a
live-shooter scenario. Funny, so are the rest of us, by government
diktat.