Jay Evensen
  • Front Page
  • Opinions
  • Second Thoughts
  • Portfolio
  • Awards
  • About

Why coins won't replace dollars any time soon

11/29/2012

2 Comments

 
Picture
Remember how popular those Sacagawea dollars were?

Or, if you’re old enough, do you remember how eager you once were to fill your billfold with Susan B. Anthonys, or “Sussies,” as we affectionately called them?

I thought so.

Conventional wisdom says these coins failed because Americans just don’t want to replace dollar bills with jingling loose change. That’s

what opinion polls have said — 70 percent of you prefer to keep the paper bills, according to Lincoln Park Strategies.

Change, as both sides agree, is difficult. That’s a statement that has two meanings. We don’t want those things dragging down our pants.

But the Dollar Coin Alliance says the Sussies and Sacagaweas failed because the government tried to run two systems at once. What needs to happen, they say, is for the government to completely eliminated dollar bills, then mint the coins.

People will complain, as they did when the government forced everyone to change to digital television, but they soon will get used to it. And getting used to it means saving the government money, without raising taxes or cutting any programs.

I’m writing about this because, at a congressional hearing this week, the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office once again recommended the switch to coins. It was the eighth time in 22 years the GAO has done so.

But, even in a time of economic distress, the message isn’t any more likely to take hold this time than in the past.

“Would we want to have a paper quarter? At some point it becomes ridiculous to have a paper dollar.”
I spoke with Shawn Smeallie, executive director of the Dollar Coin Alliance. He has some logical reasons for making the switch.

“This is a product of inflation,” he said. Today, the dollar is worth approximately what a quarter was worth in the 1970s. “Would we want to have a paper quarter? At some point it becomes ridiculous to have a paper dollar.”

The average dollar bill circulates for 4.7 years before it becomes unusable and has to be shredded and put in the landfill. A coin can remain in use about 40 years before it degrades, and then it could be melted down to create some more.

The difference would save about $11 billion, Smeallie said. That’s not enough to move the nation even an inch from the fiscal cliff, but “if we can’t do even this much, it sends a bad signal.”

Smeallie has answers to all the common objections. To people who say they don’t want to be weighed down by coins, he comes back with: “How many dollar bills do you have in your wallet right now?” Most people don’t have many. That means they wouldn’t have many dollar coins.

He even plays the “distrust of the Federal Reserve” card. The Fed makes 95 cents off every dollar printed, he said. The U.S. Mint would create dollar coins and sell them at face value. This is why, he said, the Fed stands in the way of any move to a coin.

Here is why the change won’t happen, at least not at this time:

First, dollar bills — greenbacks, lettuce, the mean green, the almighty dollar — are a big part of American culture, and the dollar remains the world’s leading currency. Turning it into a coin would be seen by politicians, and many in the public, as sending a bad signal to the rest of the world.

Second, the nation is rapidly become cashless. We use credit cards, we shop online, we now use mobile phone payment apps. If it costs less to mint coins than it does to print bills, think how much less it will cost to do nothing.

Smeallie laughs at that, saying we won’t be cashless until we fly around in “George Jetson cars.”

He’s right that low-income people still rely on cash and that you still need it to ride a lot of mass-transit systems, but Americans use much less cash than they did a few years ago, and the trend is accelerating.

Here’s an idea to save money: Instead of doing away with $1 bills, just reduce their size each year commensurate with the inflation rate. That saves on the cost of paper and ink and is a constant reminder to the public that the dollar is literally shrinking.

Eventually, when dollars are the size of the strips that come out of a paper shredder, people will demand coins.

2 Comments

Angus T. Jones was right, turn off Two and a Half Men

11/28/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
It didn’t take long for some in Hollywood to come up with their own analysis of Angus T. Jones’ viral video, in which he tells people to quit watching  Two and a Half Men,  the television sitcom in which he plays a role and which he called “filth.”

He might be brainwashed.

No one said as much out loud, but Eonline.com quoted sources saying Jones’ mother and people who work with him on the CBS show were wondering whether the new church Jones has chosen to attend is messing with his mind. They worry the church is just after the young actor’s money (Jones is 19).

Well, of course. Why else would he attack the content of such a virtuous show? Why would he be so judgmental?

All of this should be placed in the context of Jones’ own seemingly wobbly behavior on the subject. After the video became an issue, he made an apology of sorts, saying he had no intention of hurting anyone he

works with and offering thanks for the opportunity to be on the show.

He did not, however, retract the f-word — filth — that seemed to have so many people atwitter (quite literally, if you check Tweets under the hashtag #angusjones).

But no matter. If you have a religious conversion and attack the content of Hollywood shows, especially when that goes against your own financial interests, you must be brainwashed.

Do you get the rich irony here? Let me spell it out for you.

The Parents Television Council, also frequently derided by Hollywood apologists, describes the content of Two and a Half Men as containing frequent foul language and “a constant barrage of sexual scenes and jokes.” It goes into considerable detail as to what this means specifically, which I won’t do here — the Parents Television Council actually documents and enumerates such things.

"I don’t know the level of Jones’ commitment to what he said on YouTube, but he was spot on."

The bottom line from the council is that “The content on Two and a Half Men is not appropriate for children of any age.” Why limit that to just children?

Five years ago, the American Psychological Association issued a report on what it called the “sexualization of girls.” It was a compilation of scholarly research, which consistently supported the conclusion that society’s ever-increasing sexualization of girls and women is leading to unhealthy results, and not just for girls.

"More general societal effects may include an increase in sexism; fewer girls pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence; and an increased demand for child pornography," the report said.

This sexualization, evident in popular programs, movies and advertisements, has even been shown to diminish a young woman’s ability to perform mathematical equations or think logically.

Apparently, when popular TV characters make crude jokes or use women only for gratification, these cultural media messages make young women think they are of less value, while also diminishing the way young boys view them.

The report defined “sexualization” as a message that “a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or sexual behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics…”

The Parents Television Council used that definition to examine prime-time television shows. It found young girls being sexualized as much as adult women. “About 93 percent of sexual incidents among underage characters fit the APA’s category of ‘unhealthy’ sexuality,” it said.

The consistent presentation of uncommitted sex as entertainment and young women, in particular, as little more than objects is, it seems, affecting how people think about themselves and the world around them.

Sounds like brainwashing to me.

Two and a Half Men may direct most of its jokes at male behavior, but that hardly matters. It is one more part of a prime time cultural barrage that coarsens behavior and cheapens what ought to be valued and protected.

I don’t know the level of Jones’ commitment to what he said on YouTube, but he was spot on.

“If you watch Two and a Half Men,” he said, “please stop watching Two and a Half Men … Please stop watching it and filling your head with filth."

That may be the sanest thing I’ve heard from a prime time actor in a long time.
0 Comments

Norquist's tax pledge just gets in the way

11/27/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Grover Norquist. (Photo by Gage Skidmore.)
If anything emerges from negotiations to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” it should be the signing of a new pledge by all politicians — a pledge to not sign any more pledges.

Politics has been described as the art of the possible, but the possible won’t happen without some give here and there. And when unelected people like Grover Norquist come along and pressure politicians to sign pledges that tie their hands, the possible becomes a little more impossible.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a fan of tax increases. They pull money out of the economy and away from the job- and wealth-creating private sector. But any fool can see that fixing the nation’s fiscal imbalance will take a combination of cuts, reforms and revenue increases.

You can’t get there if one side refuses to budge on one of those three items, and Norquist would make even intelligent revenue enhancements impossible.

The Democrats are just as bull-headed about entitlement reforms, but to be fair, they haven’t signed any pledges.

The Norquist pledge looks simple, but it’s not.

Norquist is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. He started getting Republicans to sign a pledge not to raise taxes back in the mid-1980s. In the early ‘90s, the first President Bush famously violated his own “Read my lips” declaration against tax hikes and supported raising the highest marginal income tax rate to 31 percent. The rate climbed again to 39.6 percent in 1993, where it held until the “temporary” tax cuts of the George W. Bush era reduced them to 35 percent.

"But if you agree, and you truly hold to the no-new-tax pledge, you also would oppose Republican-led proposals to reform the tax code and eliminate loopholes"
A lot of lawmakers have been elected since those tax cuts, and many others have been around since before that time. If those cuts were temporary, would a return to the previous rate really be considered a violation of the pledge?

Norquist believes so.

But if you agree, and you truly hold to the no-new-tax pledge, you also would oppose Republican-led proposals to reform the tax code and eliminate loopholes. Each loophole, after all, is a tax cut for one special interest or another. Removing the loophole is a tax hike for someone out there. Take away the mortgage deduction and see how much more the average family has to pay.

Simply put, the tax pledge keeps Washington from doing anything meaningful toward closing the gap between revenues and expenditures. If Republicans aren’t going to come a little way, Democrats won’t, either. And Democrats have the legitimate argument of claiming a slight edge from the recent election.

Norquist has likened the pledge to a wedding vow. "I hope his wife understands the commitments last a little longer than two years or something," he said in response to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who said the pledge should be only for the congressional session during which it was signed.

That’s an interesting comparison, given the record some politicians have in regard to their marital vows.

But it actually cheapens marriage vows, which come with some legal enforcements and protections, and which are vital to civil society and the raising of children.

No legislative body can limit or control a future legislative body, nor should an elected official be kept from dealing with problems because of conditions that existed long ago.

Norquist never has been elected to anything. Republicans signed his pledge because, as politicians, they understood the public wanted to hold the line on taxes. The public now seems to have changed its mind, based on election results and exit-polling.

If Republicans were to offer tax reforms, loophole eliminations and a slight increase in the top marginal rate, the pressure would be squarely on Democrats to offer their own concessions.

The alternative — doing nothing — won’t destroy the country on Jan. 1. But it would signal that politicians have little intention of hammering out solutions to the nation’s serious long-term fiscal problems.

Politics will have lost its art in the name of bull-headed ideology.

0 Comments

Black Friday, Cyber Monday — No way to fuel a recovery

11/26/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
So, let me get this straight. The United States is facing a “fiscal cliff” because its leaders have habitually spent far more than the government collects in revenue. Leaders of both parties agree that excessive borrowing, through deficit spending, is bad and must stop (although they have different ideas on the solution).

And in the midst of this, everyone seems to be holding their breath, hoping that Black Friday, Cyber Monday and the entire Christmas season brings in gazillions of dollars in consumer spending fueled mainly by credit card debt?

I could launch into a rant on the contradictions between what we expect from our politicians and what we expect of ourselves, but instead I will point out that the two sets of behavior are not unrelated.

If we fuel an economic recovery on unsecured consumer debt, is it really a sustainable economic recovery? Wasn’t that sort of spending, through risky home equity loans and debts that exceeded the ability to pay, a

big part of why the economic collapse of 2008 has had such a long-lasting effect?

Even if risky behavior by financial institutions, fueled by bad government incentives, was the main reason institutions teetered or collapsed, debts on a personal level made it much harder for people to weather the storm.

So now we are told that Black Friday sales were strong but not spectacular, but that online sales topped $1 billion. But we’re also being told, as this ABC News report said, that consumers “cranked up their use of credit cards in the third quarter.”

The report cited figures from TransUnion, a credit-reporting agency, that the credit card debt per borrower grew 4.9 percent during that quarter, as compared to a year ago, to $4,996.

Round that off to $5,000. That doesn’t seem like the kind of figure most people could pay off each month when the bill comes due.

On Forbes.com this week, Panos Mourdoukoutas wrote about good debt and bad debt. It’s pretty simple, really. Good debt buys something that will increase in value, whether that is an education that will lead to a lucrative career or a small-business loan.

Bad debt is money we borrow for things we don’t really need, and at terms that are onerous and, frankly, ridiculous.

Why do people accumulate bad debt? Mourdoukoutas said you can blame the emotional side of your brain. He quotes author Jonah Lehrer.

““Paying with plastic fundamentally changes the way we spend money, altering the calculus of our financial decisions. When you buy something with cash, the purchase involves an actual loss — your wallet is literally lighter.”

This blog by Anisha Sekar on USNews.com, says much the same. “Paying with cash gives that visceral feeling of forking over money, making you more aware of your purchases than an electronic transfer ever could.”

That’s sound advice. Unfortunately, with mobile devices increasingly being used to pay at the register, the world is moving farther and farther away from cash.

That’s too bad. Imagine if political leaders had a giant warehouse full of cash from tax revenues. They might feel a little differently when it all ran out and they had to go borrow more.

But that’s pure fantasy — just like imagining politicians being thrown off a literal cliff if they can’t reach a compromise by the end of the year.

0 Comments

Despite 'Black Friday,' the spirit of the season still lives

11/21/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Harry S. Truman finally paid his overdue newspaper bill.

Well, the ex-president didn’t actually pay it, seeing as how he passed on in 1972. But when the Truman Library and Museum realized he had never paid the $7.50 he owed 15-year-old paper boy George Lund back in 1947, officials decided to make good to the tune of $56.63 — the amount due plus interest.

Lund, who now is 80, said he just figured the president was too busy with other things at the time to bother with a paperboy in Independence, Mo. The payment took place earlier this year at a retirement community and, in keeping with Truman’s “the buck stops here” motto, Lund was paid in $1 bills.

I imagine wherever ol’ Harry is right now, he’s feeling a sense of relief.

Honesty and goodness can’t be measured by size. They


“I ran to the car, threw it in the front seat and locked my doors, looking for drug dealers following me,” she said.

are things you either have or you don’t.

Because of holiday deadlines, I’m writing this before “black Friday” (or is it “black Thursday” now?) If history holds, it will be a time of pushing, coveting and desperate grabbing, and much of this bad behavior won’t be done with the intent of giving to anyone else.

According to marketingcharts.com, one study has found that 8 in 10 Black Friday shoppers intend to buy things for themselves.

That’s a confusing way to kick off a season that is supposed to be marked by generosity, love and charity. The annual convergence of consumerism’s biggest moment with the celebration of Christ’s birth can breed some stark inconsistencies.

The only time I decided to experience black Friday — on a cold predawn nine years ago — I felt anything but the Christmas spirit. The woman who kept ramming me from behind with her shopping cart didn’t have what I would call a child-like gleam in her eyes.

So it can be both instructive and calming to turn from the chaotic scene of holiday madness and look at examples of people who put honesty ahead of everything else. If you look for such things, you quickly find that Truman’s museum is just a minor example in a flood of the virtue-over-profit spirit.

You’ll find the 13-year-old boy in New Zealand who returned a wallet containing $80 and credit cards to a jogger who lost it on a beach. The jogger said it restored his faith in human nature.

You’ll find a woman in the Boston area who last week thought she might have found the perfect gift for her daughter-in-law in a department store. Then she realized the handbag hanging on a rack belonged to someone, and it had $11,000 in cash inside, all in rolled-up $100 bills.

The woman, Cheryl Gavazzi, could have left it hanging, but she decided the right thing to do was to turn it into the police. She didn’t want to trust such a large amount to the store’s young cashiers. She also worried the money represented someone’s ill-gotten gain.

“I ran to the car, threw it in the front seat and locked my doors, looking for drug dealers following me,” she said, describing herself as a “nervous wreck.”

The police found the owner, a man who had collected the cash from a fund-raiser for a new church in Guatemala, and who had put it in his wife’s bag. The man was contemplating canceling Christmas and selling his car to cover his loss when the bag was returned.

Or there was the assistant manager at a Taco Bell in Merced, Calif., who found a yellow purse and went to great lengths to return it to a woman who had just been passing through town.

His mother, he said, just had a lost camera returned by a conscientious person. “That’s how it should be,” he had thought, and that made his actions easier.

Then there are the “layaway angels” who show up seemingly out of nowhere to pay a stranger’s layaway bills at stores nationwide.

The examples seem to never end. Like the Truman Library paying a past debt, they remind us that goodness, and the true spirit of the season, still remain strong.

0 Comments

Was there vote fraud in the 2012 elections?

11/16/2012

1 Comment

 
Picture
Just because the election is over doesn’t mean politics has ended. That’s like saying the passing of a storm signals the end to all weather.

So it’s not surprising to hear people point to irregularities in the general election in an effort to boost their arguments for voter I.D. laws. Some of the claims are ridiculous, but some really do point out bizarre results that require a bit of head-scratching.

Let’s start with the ridiculous. Maine’s Republican Party chairman, Charlie Webster, basically accused Democrats of busing in African-Americans to vote for Obama in rural areas. At least, he acted perplexed that people actually saw humans with black skin casting votes.

“In some parts of Maine, there were dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day,” he said. “Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black.”

Well, a small percentage of Maine is, in fact, black, and Webster later apologized for his remarks.

But that one never passed the smell test. If you were going to rig a presidential election, you would look for a more effective way than to send only dozens of conspicuous people into rural Maine to somehow cast ballots they weren’t registered to obtain.

Now on to the head-scratchers:

In 59 Philadelphia voting districts, Mitt Romney received zero votes, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The same happened in nine inner-city Cleveland districts, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Really?

It’s easy to believe President Obama would win those districts by an overwhelming majority, but totally and completely unanimous? Even in his rigged elections, Saddam Hussein never got 100 percent.

And Mitt Romney, it’s worth noting, only got 78 percent of the Mormon vote.

But, frankly, a rigged result like that would be too obvious, which argues against fraud.

Finally, Florida once again proved that, if it were an independent nation, it would make Haiti’s elections look good.

In St. Lucie County, 247,383 votes were counted. The only problem with that is that the number of registered voters there is 175,554.

This blogger called it a massive fraud. Officials, however, explained that the ballot was so long some voters submitted two voting cards. The actual turnout was said to be about 70 percent, which some conservatives think is still suspicious.

So what’s going on?

Look, no election, especially one involving more than 100 million voters, can be held without some strange problems. I’ve spoke with election clerks that tell of all kinds of odd things, mostly involving equipment problems and mostly in races where the outcome was not otherwise in doubt, so the problems didn’t come to light. I doubt any presidential election in U.S. history has been without these oddities, and there certainly have been instances of real fraud.

However, none of the above instances was of a scope large enough to change the outcome of the election. I’m also not sure they would have been changed by the requirement of a photo I.D.

That doesn’t mean states shouldn’t require I.D., as long as it makes them readily available to those voters who otherwise don’t have one. Any step toward making elections more secure is a good one.

Politics, after all, is a conduit to power, and power can tempt people to do some strange and desperate things.
1 Comment

School reformers must start thinking radically

11/14/2012

1 Comment

 
Picture
American students rank 14th in the world in reading, 17th in science, 25th in math. The Slovak Republic and Estonia do a better job preparing students, and with far fewer resources.

The way I see it, we can continue doing the same things over and over again — including “reforms” like merit pay and charter schools — and expect a different result. But that wouldn’t say much for the nation’s collective mental health. Or we can start thinking radically about public education.

Jal Mehta, an assistant professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, puts it this way: “We put reforms through our existing system, and when they do not work as we had hoped, we ask what is wrong with the reform, when we should instead be asking what is wrong with the system.”

Mehta’s thoughts were published last week by the American Enterprise Institute. He presented what he calls five pathways to completely reshaping schools. Each is different, and each is radical. And each would take a long time to work.

The idea is that stakeholders, from politicians right down to parents, need to decide how to proceed. But whatever happens needs to be radical.

His first pathway would be to take what is a bureaucratic system and make it a professional one. Change every aspect of how teachers are recruited and trained. Make it harder to achieve tenure and demonstrate teaching mastery.

With time, Mehta believes, a “new knowledge infrastructure” would be created within the profession and teachers would be treated more like those in other professions — as experts with “a degree of professional power.”

His second idea would be to reform schools from the outside in, letting a new education infrastructure, already forming in the private sector, replace the old. Private charter operators and alternative teacher certification providers are providing new pathways in the new century.

Mehta’s third idea is to take everything apart and put it back together differently. Instead of schools that offer traditional math, science, English and history, let schools serve as general contractors that hire outside organizations to teach each specialty.

This could be done by a combination of online and in-person methods. Students could customize learning to fit their needs, allowing creativity and fostering curiosity and the love of learning.

He compares this system to a hospital. Star teachers, like specialized surgeons, would be in demand and would come with a range of support personnel to perform tasks. Some might, for example, teach only fractions to elementary students, rather than, under the current system, a range of math skills to just one fourth grade class.

The fourth idea would be to change the relationship between schools and the rest of society. The idea here is to compensate for knowledge lost during the summer break or, in some cases, for poor learning environments in neighborhoods.

This may require governments to provide programs before and after school, and perhaps workshops for new parents in an effort to help kids prepare to begin school. His vision goes far beyond what some cities currently offer, involving a network of agencies and nonprofit organizations.

Finally, he suggests dissolving the school system entirely and giving students a more direct line to the ever-expanding world of knowledge.

Schools, he notes, are “frozen in time.” They still hand out textbooks and use computers as electronic workbooks. Meanwhile, Google is creating a vast digital archive of knowledge and even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology provides free access to its lectures.

Learning has never been so exciting. Why not let kids pursue their natural interests, with adult supervision? Why not move away from committees that certify what children should read and learn?

Why not, indeed? In the end, Mehta acknowledges that big changes will be hard, given the reality of public school structures. I could add that parents, who often let emotions color their view of schools, tend to stand in the way of change, as well.

To be clear, I don’t endorse any of these proposals. But they are not quick fixes, and they are radical. Those are essential ingredients for truly moving education forward in a new century.
1 Comment

Secession petition nonsense

11/13/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Forget the early reports that Utah wasn’t among the states supposedly seeking to secede from the union over the re-election of President Barack Obama. That ended Monday when someone who courageously calls himself or herself “A.L. in Ogden” started one.

People who supposedly represent several different states have started petitions on the White House web site asking to peacefully leave the union. The web site has a page on which people may start petitions that, if they reach a certain threshold of signatures, will get a response from the administration.

A lot of the secession petitions use verbiage that echoes the Declaration of Independence, asserting it is time to abolish the government and institute a new one.

The Texas petition talks about the current government’s “neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending," although that seems to be as much a Republican problem as a Democratic one. Frankly, the people haven’t helped much, either.

But never mind, for these folks, democracy apparently works only when the majority agrees with them.

The petitions don’t have any force of law, nor do they represent any sort of public consensus. Secession would, at minimum, take a vote of the state Legislature and support of the governor. History suggests the road from there would get pretty ugly and bloody, and that's going by what happened in the 1860s, before the Union Army got smart bombs.

But the Utah petition is especially telling. Among other things, it says, the people “believe that it is time to take matter upon ourselves…” It says we should “here buy govern ourselves…”

I’m not sure what kind of government these petitioners would establish, but it’s a safe bet English wouldn’t be the official language.

0 Comments

Obama or Boehner — who holds the upper hand?

11/12/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Which carries more political heft — Barack Obama’s re-election as president or the Republicans’ ability to keep control of the House?

The answer will unfold in coming weeks as Washington tries to back away from the end-of-the-year fiscal cliff, but it’s clear right now that Obama holds the upper hand.

There are two reasons for this. One is that

Picture
he has a loud microphone as president, and he is smart enough to now be planning a public campaign to press his point of view.

The other is that House Republicans are divided. House Speaker John Boehner knows his party has to back down from its no-tax-hike line in the sand. So do other well-known conservatives like William Kristol, who hinted over the weekend it may be time to tax millionaires more.

But the farthest right wing of the party is trying to push the notion that Mitt Romney lost because he wasn’t stridently conservative enough.

Tea party advocates (since there is no such entity as the tea party, it’s impossible to quote a tea party “official”) say the time has come to move the party more in their direction.  The old warhorse Richard Viguerie, who first started helping conservatives when Ronald Reagan was running for his first term, said, “the disaster of 2012 signals the beginning of the battle to take over the Republican Party,” meaning, of course, a right-wing takeover, according to this New York Times piece.
(Story continues below)



I doubt many voters chose Democrats because the Republican alternatives weren’t conservative enough. Maybe some people stayed home on that account. In any event, that seems like a dangerous political gamble at this time, and especially given the Dec. 31 deadline to craft a budget deal.

Still, House Republicans do have the power to stand in the way of the president getting what he wants. That’s a powerful stick. They may not be able to fight public opinion on taxing the rich, but they may get Obama to raise the minimum income level at which a tax hike takes effect, and to agree to get rid of some popular tax deductions.

Whatever happens could set the tone for how Boehner and the president handle their balance of power for the next two years, and whether the tea party makes a comeback or fades into the shadows.
0 Comments

Marijuana use, though harmful, creeps into acceptance

11/7/2012

1 Comment

 
Picture
The patient and persistent drug culture in this country must be filled with fans of Alexander Pope. In his “An Essay on Man,” Pope famously referred to vice as a “monster of so frightful mien” that, “as, to be hated, needs but to be seen.”

He then provided a formula the illicit drug culture has used as a blueprint for success. “Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Way back in 1996, voters in California and

Arizona first approved the idea of making it legal to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes only. Critics tried to argue that the real aim was to pave the way for a full legalization of the drug for any purpose at all.

They were drowned out by calls to help AIDS victims who, it was said, needed the drug to alleviate pain that could be treated no other way.

The New York Times quoted the president of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, James E. Copple, saying that was “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

“They’re using the AIDS victims and terminally ill as props to promote the use of marijuana,” he said, “It’s a brilliant diversionary tactic.”

Well, the disguise is now off, but, according to plan, too many Americans now see the wolf as a sheep.

A majority of voters in Colorado and Washington state decided Tuesday to legalize marijuana for recreational use. If medicinal marijuana established a beachhead, this was a major incursion by the invasion force.

Supporters called it a first step toward ending what they call “prohibition” nationwide.

That’s important and strategic rhetoric. Linking the effort to a period of history generally thought to have been a huge failure — the brief constitutional prohibition of alcohol sales — is another tactic to gain hearts and minds.

Despite the victory in two states, legal marijuana still has many Americans divided. A similar measure failed in Oregon. Voters in Arkansas defeated a measure to legalize the drug for medicinal purposes, while Massachusetts approved such a law. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia already allow consumption under limited circumstances.

This comes at a time when legislatures nationwide are looking for ways to outlaw new creative forays into the hallucinogenic arts, from the use of Spice, which contains a synthetic form of the chemical that makes  marijuana potent, to Ivory Wave, mephedrone tablets and, believe it or not, the smoking or excess consumption of nutmeg.

The tugs and pulls in different directions send strange, mixed messages to the nation’s youth.

Since the beginning of time, people have sought ways to alter their minds through stimulants. Generally, governments have recognized a need to control and discourage this for the protection and well being of society at large. People who aren’t in their right minds tend to do things that, quite simply, aren’t right.

Although regulated, alcohol has gotten a pass because of its historical acceptance in society and because it can be consumed in responsible ways. But there can be no denying it is the source of a host of societal ills. Expanding the list of legal mind-altering substances makes no sense.

As Charles Stimson wrote recently for the Heritage Foundation, the oft-cited claim that legalizing marijuana would stop drug-related crime and sap the strength of cartels and gangs has no basis in fact. Legalization will increase demand, which likely will be met in part by cartels and underground markets offering versions more potent than the government allows.

Meanwhile, the stories of those whose lives are ruined by marijuana, like the facts about its harmful effects on respiratory health, the heart and cognitive abilities, tend to be downplayed or ignored.

Voters in Washington and Colorado haven’t had the last word on this issue. Marijuana use still violates federal law, and a states’ rights showdown is looming.

But it’s instructive to see how attitudes have shifted in less than 20 years. As with gambling as some other ills that obviously harm the general welfare, Utah may one day find itself a lonely outpost in the drug war, as well — the only state willing to see the drug for what it is.

1 Comment
<<Previous

    RSS Feed

    Search this site


    Like what you read here?

      Please subscribe below, and we'll let you know when there is a new opinion.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Picture

    The author

    Jay Evensen is the Senior Editorial Columnist of the Deseret News. He has nearly 40 years experience as a reporter, editor and editorial writer in Oklahoma, New York City, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City. He also has been an adjunct journalism professor at Brigham Young and Weber State universities.

    Archives

    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012

    Categories

    All
    Campaign 2012
    Congress
    Crime
    Culture
    Iran
    Oil And Gas
    Poverty
    Steroids
    Taxes
    Utah
    Washington
    World Events
    World Events

    Links

    Deseret News
    Newslink
    Marianne Evensen's blog

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.