Come for the Argument That Casual Drug Use Shouldn’t Be Treated Differently Than Alcohol, Stay for the Spirited Comments

Yesterday,
I posted a column
at Time.com arguing that casual drug use
shouldn’t be seen as categorically different than casual alcohol
use.

The news hook, of course, was Rep. Trey Radel’s pleading guilty
to cocaine possession after getting nabbed in a Washington, D.C.
drug sting (great use of police resources, by the way, nabbing a
guy buying a few grams of coke in a Dupont Circle bar from an
undercover cop).

I document in the piece that exceedingly few people who use
currently illegal drugs go on to become regular users of those
substances, much less addicts. Even Radel, a conservative
Republican from Florida, didn’t say he was a cocaine addict –
instead, he blamed his decision to buy coke on his alcoholism.

Here’s a snippet from my article:

Prohibitionists typically deny the very possibility of
responsible or voluntary use of currently illegal substances. They
argue that drugs such as coke, heroin, ecstasy, methamphetamine and
even marijuana are verboten precisely because they simply can’t be
used casually. Any use either already constitutes abuse or quickly
leads to it. “Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal,”
former drug czar William Bennett and former Health, Education and
Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano wrote in a 2011 Wall
Street Journal
 op-ed, “they are illegal because they
are dangerous.”

Nearly 50% of people have tried an illegal drug at least once,
yet most don’t repeat the experience. With cocaine, most who have
tried it not only don’t go on to became addicts under even the most
expansive possible definition of the term, they don’t even go on to
become regular users.

According to the
latest National
Survey on Drug Use and Health
, 14.5% of Americans ages 12 and
older have tried cocaine at least once, but just 1.8% report using
the drug recreationally in the past year. And just 0.6% have used
it in the past 30 days, which would seem to be the minimal
definition of a casual user.

The same pattern is true for heroin, which is typically talked
about as magically addictive. Fear of the drug is surely one of the
reasons why just 1.8% of Americans have ever tried it at all. But
only 0.3% report using it in the past year and just 0.1% in the
past month. That pattern simply shouldn’t be possible if these
drugs were as addictive as commonly thought.


Read the whole thing here.
 And check out the comments
section, where a thoughtful and full-blooded discussion is taking
place over the question of whether drugs should be illegal and
whether people can in fact use these substances responsibly.
Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals,
foreign terrorists, and corrupt law enforcement officials is
seriously compromising our future,” writes one commenter, while
another says, “
You’re only addicted when you can’t
afford it.”

Opponents of legalization are well represented too, but I think
it’s a sign of the times that Time.com is not only open to running
articles titled “What’s So Bad About Casual Drug Use?” but readers
are seriously debating the merits of a major change in federal
policy.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/come-for-the-argument-that-casual-drug-u
via IFTTT

Come for the Argument That Casual Drug Use Shouldn't Be Treated Differently Than Alcohol, Stay for the Spirited Comments

Yesterday,
I posted a column
at Time.com arguing that casual drug use
shouldn’t be seen as categorically different than casual alcohol
use.

The news hook, of course, was Rep. Trey Radel’s pleading guilty
to cocaine possession after getting nabbed in a Washington, D.C.
drug sting (great use of police resources, by the way, nabbing a
guy buying a few grams of coke in a Dupont Circle bar from an
undercover cop).

I document in the piece that exceedingly few people who use
currently illegal drugs go on to become regular users of those
substances, much less addicts. Even Radel, a conservative
Republican from Florida, didn’t say he was a cocaine addict –
instead, he blamed his decision to buy coke on his alcoholism.

Here’s a snippet from my article:

Prohibitionists typically deny the very possibility of
responsible or voluntary use of currently illegal substances. They
argue that drugs such as coke, heroin, ecstasy, methamphetamine and
even marijuana are verboten precisely because they simply can’t be
used casually. Any use either already constitutes abuse or quickly
leads to it. “Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal,”
former drug czar William Bennett and former Health, Education and
Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano wrote in a 2011 Wall
Street Journal
 op-ed, “they are illegal because they
are dangerous.”

Nearly 50% of people have tried an illegal drug at least once,
yet most don’t repeat the experience. With cocaine, most who have
tried it not only don’t go on to became addicts under even the most
expansive possible definition of the term, they don’t even go on to
become regular users.

According to the
latest National
Survey on Drug Use and Health
, 14.5% of Americans ages 12 and
older have tried cocaine at least once, but just 1.8% report using
the drug recreationally in the past year. And just 0.6% have used
it in the past 30 days, which would seem to be the minimal
definition of a casual user.

The same pattern is true for heroin, which is typically talked
about as magically addictive. Fear of the drug is surely one of the
reasons why just 1.8% of Americans have ever tried it at all. But
only 0.3% report using it in the past year and just 0.1% in the
past month. That pattern simply shouldn’t be possible if these
drugs were as addictive as commonly thought.


Read the whole thing here.
 And check out the comments
section, where a thoughtful and full-blooded discussion is taking
place over the question of whether drugs should be illegal and
whether people can in fact use these substances responsibly.
Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals,
foreign terrorists, and corrupt law enforcement officials is
seriously compromising our future,” writes one commenter, while
another says, “
You’re only addicted when you can’t
afford it.”

Opponents of legalization are well represented too, but I think
it’s a sign of the times that Time.com is not only open to running
articles titled “What’s So Bad About Casual Drug Use?” but readers
are seriously debating the merits of a major change in federal
policy.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/come-for-the-argument-that-casual-drug-u
via IFTTT

Today’s Alternative Anniversaries for Those Allergic to Boomer Nostalgia

Hate the oh-what-a-night nostalgia of
JFK assassination anniversary stories? Then read this
acidic Jack Shafer take
about the coverage, wash it down with
Nick Gillespie’s
skewering of Boomer narcissism
, and browse through the recent
JFK musings
of our resident conspiracy-historian,
Jesse Walker.

Or, if you prefer sidestepping the whole tawdry business
altogether and making your own anniversary memories instead, choose
among these sadly neglected Nov. 22 events from years gone by. For
instance, this 1987
broadcast-hijacking by a Chicago man dressed as Max
Headroom
:

 

Terrifying.

Prefer a more momentous conspiracy, at the highest levels,
involving murder and the mass confiscation of property? Then strap
on your Dan Brown boots and luxuriate in the 1307 Papal Bull
Pastoralis
Praeeminentiae
by the Goth French Pope Clement V,
ordering Christian monarchs to persecute the
Knights of Templar
. It’s more creepy with a soundtrack:

 

Today is the 9th anniversary of the beginning of Ukraine’s
Orange
Revolution
, the 24th anniversary of all kinds of stuff relating
to the collapse of communism (such as this
massive rally
on Prague’s Wenceslas Square), the 38th
anniversary of Spanish King Juan
Carlos
‘s ascension to the throne (Señor Franco, he still
dead!), the 70th anniversary of Lebanon’s independence from
France
, the 85th anniversary of
the premier of Ravel’s Boléro
(celebrate with Bo Derek!), and
the 155th birthday of
Denver, Colorado
.

As Professor Barack Obama
taught us
, we are the anniversary we’ve been waiting for, so
there’s no need whatsoever to accept other people’s historical
priorities. Nominate your favorite Nov. 22 alternatives in the
comments, and I’ll update the post with good ones.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/todays-alternative-anniversaries-for-tho
via IFTTT

David Stockman Blasts “It’s 2007/8 All Over Again”

“Bubbles are breaking out everywhere,” exclaims outspoken former-insider David Stockman in this brief FoxTV clip, warning that “its like 2007/2008 all over again.” Of course, we have heard ‘bubble’ talk before but Stockman steps methodically from the broad market (exposing the incredible numbers behind the Russell 2000) to junk bonds (and the record-breaking issuance and risk ignorance) and Fannie Mae (as an example of the idiocy). Crucially, Stockman explains to Neilo Cavuto who tempers the bubble-talk with aggregate measures, “bubbles don’t form at the heart of the Dow, they form on the speculative periphery of the economy and work their way in,” – something that is very evident in today’s market, “the market will have a huge hissy-fit if Yellen tapers… the Fed has taken itself hostage.”

 

Stockman goes on to destroy the myth of a housing recovery “there are few ‘real buyers’ this is massive speculation only”

“This is the 4th bubble the Fed has created through easy money and printing press expansion.”

“we need to get the Fed out of the market…”

“the market will have a huge hissy-fit if Yellen tapers…”

“the Fed has taken itself hostage”

“This is a destructive poisonus monetray medicine that is being put into the system that is distorting all kinds of economic mechanisms with malinvestments on a massive scale”

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/CBMOaBSOED4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

David Stockman Blasts "It's 2007/8 All Over Again"

“Bubbles are breaking out everywhere,” exclaims outspoken former-insider David Stockman in this brief FoxTV clip, warning that “its like 2007/2008 all over again.” Of course, we have heard ‘bubble’ talk before but Stockman steps methodically from the broad market (exposing the incredible numbers behind the Russell 2000) to junk bonds (and the record-breaking issuance and risk ignorance) and Fannie Mae (as an example of the idiocy). Crucially, Stockman explains to Neilo Cavuto who tempers the bubble-talk with aggregate measures, “bubbles don’t form at the heart of the Dow, they form on the speculative periphery of the economy and work their way in,” – something that is very evident in today’s market, “the market will have a huge hissy-fit if Yellen tapers… the Fed has taken itself hostage.”

 

Stockman goes on to destroy the myth of a housing recovery “there are few ‘real buyers’ this is massive speculation only”

“This is the 4th bubble the Fed has created through easy money and printing press expansion.”

“we need to get the Fed out of the market…”

“the market will have a huge hissy-fit if Yellen tapers…”

“the Fed has taken itself hostage”

“This is a destructive poisonus monetray medicine that is being put into the system that is distorting all kinds of economic mechanisms with malinvestments on a massive scale”

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/CBMOaBSOED4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Lack Of Crime Doesn’t Pay: JPM Banker Pay To Remain Flat In 2013

In the aftermath of the devastating, vicious, tax-deductible DOJ settlement with JPMorgan, its stock may have responded by soaring to new all time highs (unclear if it was JPM’s prop desk – in violation of the Volcker and every other rule – doing most of the buying) but that doesn’t mean the benefits go out equally to all. According to Reuters, while JPM’s shareholders will reap the benefits of yet another year in which Jamie Dimon uses nearly $600 billion in excess reserves, aka excess deposits, to ramp product risk around the globe and corner assorted markets (until various unknown teapot tempests blow up in his face), JPM’s employees – unable to manipulate every market as much as they want to, and as much as they have in the past now that every action by JPM is scrutizined – will be stuck with total all in compensation that is unchanged from last year. Oh the humanity.

From Reuters:

“JPMorgan Chase & Co plans to keep overall compensation roughly flat this year from last year, in a sign that employees will feel at least some pain from the bank’s recent legal settlements, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Pay increases have been muted across much of the banking sector in the aftermath of the financial crisis, but JPMorgan’s decision would put the bank on the lower end of expectations for the rest of the industry.”

However, be not sad dear JPM bankers – it was only 3 years ago that the entire world was crucifying Goldman Sachs leading to a plunge in comp for the firm’s little tentacles, which forced the hedge fund that controls every central bank in the world to go deep underwater. Since then comp has recovered and many Goldman partners are bringing in more than ever before.

So while JPM may suffer the idignity of not offering its workers a good solid raise for countless alleged acts of small and large criminality (because the firm may never admit or deny guilt), how is the rest of Wall Street doing?

Earlier this month, compensation consultant Johnson Associates estimated that commercial and retail bankers overall will get bonuses that are unchanged to 5 percent higher this year. It estimated bonuses across all of Wall Street, including large asset management firms, will be up 5 to 10 percent.

 

Options Group estimated that average pay will rise 4 percent.

 

At JPMorgan, bonuses were largely locked down early this week, though payouts could change in unusual situations or if there is an unexpected change in the company’s results during the last six weeks of the year, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 

About 156,000 of JPMorgan’s 255,000 employees work in retail, mortgage and credit card businesses, where pay is generally lower than in its investment bank.

 

“We have never blamed employees broadly for mistakes that were made away from them,” Dimon said on Tuesday in response to a question from a stock analyst about compensation expense.

… Just paid them less. And speaking of Jamie, how is his bonus looking?

It is unclear how Dimon’s bonus will be affected by the settlements. For 2012, the board cut Dimon’s total pay in half to $11.5 million, citing the $6.2 billion of “London Whale” trading losses that happened under his watch.

Assuming equal treatment for all, how can Jamie Dimon possibly subsist on just $11 million for two years in a row – just how many more bailouts and neither admitted nor denied crime sprees will it take for the charming CEO to finally stash away enough to comfortably retire?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/9GA9tbr8lU8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Lack Of Crime Doesn't Pay: JPM Banker Pay To Remain Flat In 2013

In the aftermath of the devastating, vicious, tax-deductible DOJ settlement with JPMorgan, its stock may have responded by soaring to new all time highs (unclear if it was JPM’s prop desk – in violation of the Volcker and every other rule – doing most of the buying) but that doesn’t mean the benefits go out equally to all. According to Reuters, while JPM’s shareholders will reap the benefits of yet another year in which Jamie Dimon uses nearly $600 billion in excess reserves, aka excess deposits, to ramp product risk around the globe and corner assorted markets (until various unknown teapot tempests blow up in his face), JPM’s employees – unable to manipulate every market as much as they want to, and as much as they have in the past now that every action by JPM is scrutizined – will be stuck with total all in compensation that is unchanged from last year. Oh the humanity.

From Reuters:

“JPMorgan Chase & Co plans to keep overall compensation roughly flat this year from last year, in a sign that employees will feel at least some pain from the bank’s recent legal settlements, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Pay increases have been muted across much of the banking sector in the aftermath of the financial crisis, but JPMorgan’s decision would put the bank on the lower end of expectations for the rest of the industry.”

However, be not sad dear JPM bankers – it was only 3 years ago that the entire world was crucifying Goldman Sachs leading to a plunge in comp for the firm’s little tentacles, which forced the hedge fund that controls every central bank in the world to go deep underwater. Since then comp has recovered and many Goldman partners are bringing in more than ever before.

So while JPM may suffer the idignity of not offering its workers a good solid raise for countless alleged acts of small and large criminality (because the firm may never admit or deny guilt), how is the rest of Wall Street doing?

Earlier this month, compensation consultant Johnson Associates estimated that commercial and retail bankers overall will get bonuses that are unchanged to 5 percent higher this year. It estimated bonuses across all of Wall Street, including large asset management firms, will be up 5 to 10 percent.

 

Options Group estimated that average pay will rise 4 percent.

 

At JPMorgan, bonuses were largely locked down early this week, though payouts could change in unusual situations or if there is an unexpected change in the company’s results during the last six weeks of the year, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 

About 156,000 of JPMorgan’s 255,000 employees work in retail, mortgage and credit card businesses, where pay is generally lower than in its investment bank.

 

“We have never blamed employees broadly for mistakes that were made away from them,” Dimon said on Tuesday in response to a question from a stock analyst about compensation expense.

… Just paid them less. And speaking of Jamie, how is his bonus looking?

It is unclear how Dimon’s bonus will be affected by the settlements. For 2012, the board cut Dimon’s total pay in half to $11.5 million, citing the $6.2 billion of “London Whale” trading losses that happened under his watch.

Assuming equal treatment for all, how can Jamie Dimon possibly subsist on just $11 million for two years in a row – just how many more bailouts and neither admitted nor denied crime sprees will it take for the charming CEO to finally stash away enough to comfortably retire?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/9GA9tbr8lU8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

A.M. Links: Obama, Reid Were Against Nuclear Option Before They Were For it, Saudi Police Arrest Men For Offering Free Hugs, Miley Cyrus’ Parents Not Worried About Her Drug Use

  • Yesterday, Senate Democrats invoked the so-called nuclear
    option to prevent Republicans from filibustering most
    presidential nominations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, President Obama
    and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
    were against the “nuclear option”
    before they were for it.
  • Officials in the Philippines have raised the
    Typhoon Haiyan
    death toll to more than 4,900.  
  • Religious police in
    Saudi Arabia
    have arrested two men for offering free hugs.

  • Miley Cyrus’
    parents are not worried about her drug use.
  • The number of
    homeless people
    in the U.S. has declined for the third year in
    a row.
  • A
    Tennessee county judge
    has said that drug testing judges would
    be a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
  You
can also get the top stories mailed to
you—
sign
up here.
 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/am-links-obama-reid-were-against-nucle
via IFTTT

Kurt Loder Reviews The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The
Hunger Games: Catching Fire
 is in some ways a rerun of
the first film—nearly two and a half hours of teenage
action-romance. But it’s a better movie. The producers have brought
in a new creative team to punch things up. Their wisest hire was
director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend), who whips the
story along in a tightly focused style: the picture never sags or
wanders. It’s still a movie aimed at fans of Suzanne Collins’
best-selling YA novels—and of Jennifer Lawrence, naturally—but even
viewers dragged into it kicking and screaming are unlikely to be
bored out of their minds. Well, not entirely, says Kurt Loder.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/kurt-loder-reviews-the-hunger-games-catc
via IFTTT

November 22: A Black(beard) Day in History

Edward Teach, BlackbeardOn a November 22, fading into the fog
of the past, the world lost a colorful figure whose abbreviated
career and death at a young age are bound to be long-remembered. I
refer, of course, to Edward Teach, better
known as the pirate, “Blackbeard.”

From a home base in North Carolina, the British-born Teach
terrorized Charleston, South Carolina, as well as ship-born
victims, into submission. Literally, he terrorized them,
relying on a monstrous appearance, with lit, smoking fuses inserted
in his masive beard, and fears of what he might do, to
separate captives from their money. History says he rarely actually
hurt anybody in order to extract treasure.

This is not to say he was a good person. Like, say, a government
official, he took what did not belong to him with threats of
violence, subsisting on that which had actually been earned and
produced by others. Unlike any government official, however, he
never claimed a right to do what he did—he simply stole what he
wanted from those weaker than himself.

Remarkably, Teach’s piratic adventures lasted only two years,
coming to an end in 1718. He is believed to have been in his late
thirties when he died. The pirate’s colorful personality guaranteed
him a life long after death. But then, people have a certain
weakness for predators.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/november-22-a-blackbeard-day-in-history
via IFTTT