It's an Epidemic!

By -
The radio announcer was droning on about the latest "front" in the drug war, the "epidemic" of crystal meth use. Describing this in terms of an "epidemic" is an interesting strategy: it's the invasion of some alien factor from totally outside our society -- a microbe of some sort -- that has mysteriously chosen this moment to strike. The rising use of crystal meth has nothing to do with anything actually occurring in our society, for instance, the drug war itself. And there's no one behind that curtain.

Comments

  1. Gabe Ruth3:11 PM

    I'm all in against the drug war, but could you explain its connection to the rise of crystal meth use?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:05 PM

      The idea -- which I think is fairly well backed -- is that prohibitions make more prevalent harder versions of the banned substances. So, in prohibition, people bootlegged gin and other hard liquors -- you wanted as high a dollar amount in as small a package as possible -- avoid detection and all. Similarly, people in the Andes chew cocaine leaves. But they would be really bulky to get into the US. So we get more concentrated, potent stimulants.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more