The BBC has an excellent short article on the success Montana has at reducing the number of meth users. The man with the plan was a software millionaire who described it thusly:
“We viewed it as a consumer product, researched it as a consumer product and marketed it… or un-marketed it as a consumer product.”
I love that term, “un-marketing.” They didn’t step up seizures, searches, on penalties. Instead they showed people that doing meth was a damn-fool idea. And low and behold, people stopped doing something that would kill them. We could un-market a lot of things, and we’d be much better off. Instead of telling the people of poorer sections of LA that they can’t have fast food, we could un-market fast food. Show the people that healthy food is cheaper and tastier, and watch what they do.
Good on you, Montana.
Posted in
Misc. Tags:
War on Drugs
A lot of people are talking about the drug raid on a Maryland mayor (that’s just two, trust me, there are more). The raid where the cops shot the mayor’s dogs, pretended to have a no-knock warrant, and now admit that it is a possibility that the drugs were supposed to be intercepted en route by a hidden party, having nothing to do with the actual targets of the raid. A few have brought up the fact that this conduct is not covered by the Exclusionary Rule, and that Justice Scalia has stated that a “new professionalism” on the part of the nations police force is sufficient safe guard.
The idea that we are protected by some sort of New Professionalism is so flabbergasting that I’m nearly at a loss for words. To have it espoused by a Conservative makes it more so, into the realm of dishonesty.
Much of classic liberal economics and conservatism in the U.S. is predicated on the belief that individuals are rationally self-interested, that they will take action to improve their lot in life. I’m behind that, nearly 100%. So let’s break this down like a fraction.
Constitutional limits prevent police officers from doing certain things. The police could search every home they like, whenever they like, and they would certainly catch a good many criminals. Of course, we’d rather they didn’t do that, and the Constitution renders it illegal. If and when the police make an illegal search, the evidence gets thrown out.
So a rational police officer will avoid making an illegal search; why bother obtaining evidence that you can’t use? But now, according to Justice Scalia, we don’t need to exclude the evidence, a police officer will be a professional and avoid the illegal search. Even though they might turn up relevant and admissible evidence. Even though there is no punishment.
Lots of professionals I know avoid doing the most convenient thing to get what they need. Lots.
Posted in
Law,
Ramblings Tags:
War on Drugs,
War on Rationality
John McCain delivered a speech advocating the use of Surge-style tactics to fight crime.
This is by far the scariest thing I’ve read in the last few months. And I read World War Z in July.
You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement.
And you frighten innocent people. And you waste resources. And you piss all over the concept of guilty till proven innocent. Because nothing says America like a fully kitted out, militarized police officer, if we’re lucky, soldier if we’re not, standing on the corner of Colorado and Colfax.
Via Reason.
Posted in
Law Tags:
Civil Liberties,
Politics,
War on Drugs,
War on Rationality,
War on Terror
