Travel Shows

I’ve been watching this show called “I’ll Have What Phil’s Having” on Netflix. It got picked up by PBS at some point, I’ve watched it there too. I think of it as my replacement for Bourdain’s "Parts Unknown." It’s centered on the same kinds of experiences, food, culture and history. This one’s heavy on the food more so than the history though. Phil Rosenthal is a former comedy writer for “Everybody Loves Raymond”; he’s funny in an observational way. He feigns goofy looks when tasting unusual cuisine and awkward faces when tasting ingredients he doesn’t like. The best segment is a video conference call to his parents where he updates them on his travel. The pair is at least as funny as him, spouting one liners and griping about past vacations. Where Bourdain was irreverent and prickly, Rosenthal is respectful and avuncular.

I’m sure most fans of travel shows have the same thought as me when watching, “I could do that”. Of course I don’t know if I actually could, but it seems like the type of career I would love. I am sure the travel would get stressful, as well as organizing the crews, schedules and finding local help. How many events don’t go as planned, we will never know. It’s fair to say a lot of the preparation for these shoots get tossed out by cooks that don’t show up or restaurants that won’t accommodate the host. Just getting everyone through the airports with all their equipment is a small miracle in some of these countries. Airports can be very stressful; flights get delayed, bags go missing, reservations are lost. Whoever is responsible for lining up all the disparate pieces of a film crew has a massive responsibility. To say nothing of the video editors and the local guests like chefs and guides responsible for the bulk of content. How many hours of footage are cut to make up a 50 minute segment? Maybe 20 hours? It’s just a guess but you have to figure it is quite a bit.

If I could do a travel show what type of niche travel would it be? The food and culture stuff is overrun with copycats. Whichever channel you prefer, chances are they have a version all their own. PBS has 3 that I can think of, “Rick Steves’ Europe”, “Globe Trekker” and “I’ll Have What Phil’s Having.” Steves’ show is probably the longest running but with the newer additions his version seems positively boring. It’s certainly the most PBSy of all of them, paintings and frescoes in slow pan, historical narration, silly 'need to knows'. He covers all the big ticket stuff, The Louvre in Paris and the Acropolis in Athens. Nothing against history but it could be more accessible by having a local tell some of it in interview form. TV is tricky though because it has to be visual above all else. Too many long shots and commentary and the audience tunes out.  Even Ken Burns changed his format a little with his latest Vietnam documentary. He used a lot of video and interviewed former soldiers, families of those killed and historians.

So we’ve established that the pattern of food and culture shows is full. What isn’t full though? Is this just an excuse to travel? Yes, definitely. Global travel has gotten significantly cheaper, as has the technology for the equipment. As long as the on camera hosts aren’t making outrageous sums of money, the project shouldn’t cost that much. Remember this is basically reality TV. Some of the best shows are those whose hosts were not well known to the public before it started. Most of them got famous because of their show. This means it’s relatively cheap to start. It also means a packed field where competition is fierce. I do worry that the mystique of foreign travel will cease a little with the glut of cameras and show ideas exploring every corner of the earth. Still, there is room for more creativity if the content is original. Content is king and great ideas have a way of rising to the top of any format. A low budget show with a clever hook will get picked up by larger services like Netflix or Amazon Prime if the audience numbers are there. When that happens the budgets increase, as does the crew and equipment.

I liked the Ricky Gervais model in “An Idiot Abroad."  Take a pessimistic Brit who doesn’t care about culture, complains incessantly about the weather, the foreigners, the food, the sites and the conditions of the hotel. He has a nervous breakdown near the end of nearly every episode. Gervais created the show but the man they send around the globe wasn’t known for anything except being friends with Ricky. It was a funny twist on a well-trodden formula. Unfortunately even I got tired of the ‘whinging’ and gave up after the first season. 

There are other ideas for doing travel stuff and it doesn’t have to be international. Mike Rowe is very successful with his “Dirty Jobs” show about American blue collar work. I’m not sure is he was popular in television circles before his breakout hit, but I doubt it. Dirty Jobs couldn’t work, on the same level, without Rowe’s charisma. It hangs completely on the likability of its host. Not a bad thing, but it does suggest he could do similar documentaries with the same runaway success.

For the upstart, any potential creator has to answer the question “What would I like to do?” In other words let the content develop around an interest or philosophy. Don’t try to figure out what people want to see. The work is too exhausting to try to gauge audience interest all the time. Do what you love and figure out the nuts and bolts later. It might fall flat. It might be a disaster. But if it’s even a little bit popular and interest grows as the show expands, the love for the idea will push the team through rough patches. I guess that’s true of anything creative.     

Separation Anxiety

Here is my advice on “full court press” stories from the media.  Do a little research before forming an opinion. By “full court” I mean, all out emotional hand wringing and calls for immediate responses from government. The sensational stuff is frequently wrong or skewed to elicit emotion instead of information.

   

Case in point is this latest immigration dust up over kids being separated from families. My internal radar started going off as soon I saw heard of crying kids and ‘mean-spirited’ border policies. We all know Trump is a hawk on border security so making the case that he gleefully detains kids is an easy one to make. But my instinct told me there was more to this story than brutal crack downs and forced separations, because isn’t there always more to the story?

 The best thing I read was Rich Lowry’s article on the situation at the border. I’ll retell as much of it here as I can but the best thing to do is read it. For starters most immigration at the southern border has been from Mexican men up until about 10 years ago. That’s important because a lot of the men arrested were alone, and got sent back to Mexico after being scooped up at the border. It doesn’t account for all the cases but does explain the majority of arrests and detentions. Many were caught and released into the US.  Unaccompanied minors would often get picked up as well. But holding kids in detention was bad policy so the court put restrictions in place.

The Flores Consent Decree (the current law governing hold times) puts limits on how long the government can hold onto unaccompanied minors, set at 20 days. This includes those traveling with families. The last 10 years saw an increase in families coming together. The problem is they don’t have the space to accommodate all family units that arrive together. ICE also needs to check the validity of the claims that the kids are actually traveling with parents and not random guys using them to get in. If the families picked up together want to go home, they are released together fairly quickly. If they don't want to go home, they can apply for asylum. Asylum applications gum up the works and delay the status of migrants. This is where most of the separation happens.

Families get ‘separated’ when adults apply for asylum after being arrested in border sweeps. Anyone arrested can apply and they have 10 days to get an attorney and plead their case. It isn’t easy to get though. The standards for political asylum fall along pretty neat lines. Either the state (of the migrant’s home country) has oppressed their religion or they face a genuine threat of death upon arriving back home. Think of dissidents, activists and Christians who’ve been beaten, impression and tortured. That could apply to some people in Central America crossing the border, but probably not thousands.

While awaiting asylum the adults (kids don’t get asylum) are separated from children because otherwise the government would have to hold them until the legal process completed. The government isn’t about to hold onto to kids for a legal process that may take over a year. So they either release the kids into the United States to stay with relatives or ‘responsible’ parties while the case for their parent is pending. The only other option is releasing both parents and children together into the United States and hoping they show up for the asylum trial. The problem is they aren’t likely to show up. Also, this is a big country with a lot of places to hide.

Ideally we would have enough space to accommodate whole families at the border while their application filters its way through the courts. But if it takes a year to process that means the family is essentially behind bars (even in good conditions) the entire time. Imagine how much worse this could be? Tens of thousands of families waiting in camps for long stretches over an unlikely outcome. If Congress dumped the Flores Consent Decree and allowed children to stay with their parents, we would expect to see it. As of right now, ICE only has room for a handful of families they can accommodate. 

Building Thousands of camps will play very badly with the American public.

 That’s exactly what’s going to happen though. President Trump signed an executive order the other day to do just that. If the public doesn’t like the sight of children being removed from their parents they will really hate the next phase. But without a new law from Congress, it's the only option. 

Congress is responsible to come up with a solution not the president. The executive branch enforces the law and the legislative branch (Congress) writes new ones. Ted Cruz proposed doubling the number of judges reviewing asylum cases as well as building additional facilities to house families. All with the exception that they weren’t already wanted in their home countries for crimes. It’s clear to me the only solution the Democrats want is to release the migrants into the country or turn asylum cases into a rubber stamp approval process. In other words, Amnesty. 

 Most people agree that keeping children and parents together is best, but the solution so far is large tent communities. If the asylum process becomes a quick backdoor for admittance into the country than a border wall would be pointless. Why build a massive wall when showing up a point of entry and demanding asylum practically guarantees a free pass? This is a tough problem to solve because we live in a prosperous country where others want to emigrate. It’s difficult to maintain borders when so many want in.

Putting pressure on Mexico to tighten their own borders could do some good. Mexico has no incentive to stop their own population from leaving. Remittances from the US to our Southern neighbor topped 24 billion dollars last year. That’s money send home from migrant workers in the US. It’s a major source of revenue for a country without a lot of investment. Either by heavily taxing the remittances (never popular) or finding some type of direct investment to offset the transfers, it must be in their interest. It wouldn’t stop the migration altogether but it could certainly stem the tide.

I don’t know the exact breakdown of people coming into the country from the Southern border, their nationalities, their ages, how many are escaping poverty, or how many are gang members selling drugs. A lot are probably interested in giving their children a better future than what they can expect at home. But without a rigid process for enforcement, this problem only gets worse.  

Running High

I’ve been consistently running on Sunday mornings for 3 miles when the weather is warm. I’m usually a finicky runner when it comes to cold weather but I do enjoy the heat.  3 miles is my limit for now. I have time in the morning to run further but so far I’m out of breath by 3 and I haven’t pushed it yet. I hope to be at 6 miles by the end of summer although the heat in Oklahoma makes 3 miles quite a challenge. The first leg of the job, say a half mile, is the worst. It takes me at least that far to get into a groove with steps and breathing. I run at a popular family park on a track that surrounds an 18 hole public golf course. Luckily it includes hills. If I ever get to the point where I want to run a half marathon, the hills are great practice. Nothing prepares you for those city runs like a park that includes hilly spots throughout. Most competitive events are early in the morning anyway where the heat isn’t a big issue.

There is something about running that helps clear the head. Walking works as well but doesn’t come with the constant discomfort of achy joints and labored breathing. It could be the sweat or the endorphins, but it feels like accomplishment every time I complete my goal. It isn’t just fitness and staying healthy. I enjoy the challenge of setting out on a journey, a short one for sure, and seeing it to the end. It feels like life I guess. 3 miles probably doesn’t seem like a long stretch for a lot of runners, but it isn’t the distance that counts, it’s the improvement. In other words where did you start? Can you look back after a few years and see an increase in distance or pace? I can’t really compare with the distance or pace that I keep at 20 years old in the Army. That’s an age thing though. Few people are more fit at 39 than 20. I took it for granted that I’d always be able to run without pain.

But compared to 30 years old I’m better able to handle heat and distance. The pace has dropped off a little but I guess that’s normal. Two miles used to be a great workout for me. I could finish at around 8 minutes per mile. As soon as I added another mile the time dropped precipitously to around 8 and a half. I don’t know what it would be at 6, twice the distance, but I imagine over 9 minutes.

I see others on the path, walking, running, pushing strollers and holding leashes for dogs. Some have ear buds and listen to music. I’ve tried that but it seems distracting to me. Besides I can’t run with a phone in my pocket. It bounces around and the cord comes unplugged. I must be a violent runner too because my arms swing getting caught up in the bobbing cord. Next thing that happens is the cord gets torn from either the phone end or the ear buds get ripped out mid stride. Even if I could run with music I wouldn’t want to. The point is to clear the mind and focus with the stress of an increased heart rate. 

I breath heavy too. Whenever I am passing someone on the side I watch their terror stricken face as I jog past them sounding like a frustrated mugger. Assuming they don’t have headphones in they hear me coming and brace for the worst. At least it seems so. I’ve tried to work on this too. I remember jogging on a very windy day and approaching two ladies out for walk. I knew they wouldn’t hear me yelling from behind “Left Side!” because of the strong winds. So I waited until I was within shoving distance and shouted “Left Side!” They both shrieked and jumped a little. My pathetic “Sorry!” was certainly lost to the wind as they regained composure.

I should increase the amount of time I run per week but I’m really content just doing one day for now. I still do other types of cardio and weight training throughout the week. I don’t care to replace those traditional workout days with a strict set of running guidelines. Besides, my feet need a break. I’ve had heel pain in the past and I’m not eager to increase the pounding that one day of running dishes out.

For now I’ll keep the routine I have.

Anthony Bourdain

Anthony Bourdain died a few days ago.

 Suicides are always so tragic. For stars, the loss is magnified though by an empty feeling that we will never again see their work. I think the old adage that people who commit suicide are mentally ill is being upturned on an almost daily basis. With celebrities we often know so little about their personal lives that isn’t negative, it’s hard to sort out truth from fiction. Just because they are popular figures doesn’t mean they don’t have the same struggles as the rest of us. The fame, money, prestige likely creates internal conflicts about what is means to achieve. Many get to a high point in life and realize, “This is it, I’ve made it and I am unhappy”. I'm not making excuses for them, just describing an alternate reality most of us will never know. I wonder how many self-reflect and internalize their progress and think about their achievements. It’s fair to say enough people (rich and poor) never find the illusive happiness that leads to contentment.

As a Christian I know exactly what is missing. It can’t be found in fame or prestige; it can’t be created through hard work and winning. Happiness is only found in surrender. A life surrendered to Christ, His sacrifice and grace can only occupy the empty space in our souls. How sad that so many don’t find it despite their tireless efforts to seek within themselves. We were never meant to create our own joy. Human beings are the handiwork of the Creator and not meaningless clusters of cells. It’s difficult to realize that too many people will never experience true freedom in their minds.

Bourdain went quite literally around the world in search of good cuisine, cultural anomalies and interesting personal stories. I was a huge fan of his show, both his Travel Channel epic "No Reservations" and his later CNN docu-series "Parts Unknown". The latter one focused more on history and culture, with a side of food politics. Tony could be a bit annoying when spouting lefty gibberish but I never held it against him. It was his story and we were free to shut it down if we didn’t like it. Plus he had a gift. He was a talented writer and always struck the right tone when encountering new food and cultural anomalies. He was masterful when interviewing locals about cuisine or recounting historical contexts around art and politics. His open minded attitude toward drugs caused him to battle addiction early in his life. Years of abuse take their toll on the mind and (I believe) contributed to long term depression. If not a clinical depression, certainly a deep sadness led to his tragic decision to end his life.

I think the most telling episode was his visit to a small town in Massachusetts that had been destroyed by heroin addiction and lost industry. The small city is a microcosm of all the former industrial towns that saw their jobs disappear and a generation of young people get hooked on substances. Tony followed a recovering heroin addict around for backstory on her life while recounting the city's recent history. He sat with her in a meeting (recovery group) and admitted his own addictive behavior. That episode might be the saddest, most poignant example of our current state of affairs in this country. It strikes a chord very close to home for him and for Americans in general. I’d rather watch episodes with colorful cooks and all night benders in Asian cities that never sleep. But the other side of that indulgence is the reality of artificial happiness it creates. We need to see that too.

The hope for me from these sad spectacle suicides is an awakening of sorts in matters of spiritual awareness. Kindness and empathy can go a long way toward recovery in individual lives. National programs can be helpful, but nothing is as personal as a friend.

I’m sure Anthony Bourdain had people around him who knew he had problems and encouraged him to get help. I’m also sure though that many accepted him, warts an all, and never bothered to dig a little deeper and offer help. It could be that Bourdain was a selfish jerk who didn’t care what anyone though. Either way, it’s tough to speak truth to people and risk losing their friendship or even a job. But without it, hurting people hit the wall. Those broken individuals may never understand that people around them care enough to tell them the truth, to offer help.

Likely those contemplating suicide give signals as to their struggles. The lesson for all of us is to listen more and be a friend. Ignoring problems isn’t love, it’s indifference. Sadly too many of us are indifferent, right up to the moment it’s too late.   

Abstract and the art of effort

Ever wonder what goes into logo design, creative architecture, bold photography? It takes a lot of skill to design art for consumer goods or create stage effects for pop singers like Beyonce and Kanye West.

Skill is overrated though. Just ask a creative person. Skill allows designers to start but practice is the key to their success. I've started to realize this lately. I’ve been watching this show on Netflix called Abstract. If you haven’t seen it I’ll give the basic blip. It’s a  series documentary that examines a creative person (different every episode) who is at the top of their game. I’ve watched specials on artists, designers, architects and photographers. Cameras follow the subjects as they describe their work, their failure, their ideas and a little of their philosophy. In other words, what makes them special? How do they define the creative process? When did they see their breakthrough?

They all work extremely hard. Most have to make themselves stop working at a certain point as a reminder to spend time with family. Tinker Hatfield, who designed the Air Jordan, quit working for a while. He went back once the kids were out of the house. Graphic designer Paula Scher works out of a studio in her apartment when not in the office.

If diligence creates its own success, than these designers are very successful. These are talented professionals who force themselves to work even when the inspiration isn’t there. They don’t wait for creative sparks to begin, they just do. They’ve learned that in order to create it’s essential to just work and let the magic happen. In the first episode artist Christopher Niemann begins by sketching on a tablet. He begins to draw familiar lines on the page and lets the process develop organically. He has a faint idea of what he is going for but mostly just needs to start thinking. I imagine he learned to do this very early in his career. He’s developed an effective habit that serves as a catalyst for creativity. Other artists, or writers, probably have similar techniques they use to get started.

One myth about creative types is that inspiration is all around them and they just perform. I always thought this at least. It goes against everything we know about human nature though. Mostly, that hard work is critical to success and failure happens to everyone. No matter how many times we hear that talent is secondary to effort, we assume skill is supreme. If Liz Phair writes amazing songs it’s because she is just more talented than me. If Michael Connelly writes interesting characters it’s because he’s a brilliant story teller.  I think its preservation that prevents us from seeing the truth. We want to preserve our notions about creativity and skill, that only a few select people have ‘It’. It keeps us from insisting on better quality in our own work. But listening to each one of the profiled guests on Abstract, it’s clear they constantly have doubts about their work.

To me this is wonderful news. It shows that with effort (a lot for sure) almost anyone can do more with less than they imagined. I try to keep this in mind when writing. Don’t worry too much. Progress is slow but rewarding . Spend time doing edits. Explain with fewer words. Learn how to be succinct and argue a point. Don’t give up on a thought or idea so quickly when the granules leap to mind and quickly slide away. Those are important little rocks that need shaping and polishing.

Documentaries are perfect for looking at process. I love to hear specifics about how disparate parts are brought together to form a whole. Most people like the finished product, the gleaming skyscraper, the photo shoot spread, the magazine cover. I enjoy hearing about the difficulty, the pieces that were rejected, the re-shoots, the re-design, the failed project, internal fights. I want to find out what was left out of an exhibit, and why it didn’t work. At what point did they nearly give up and scrap the whole thing? Failure can be a teaching moment for those strong enough to learn from it. Abstract shows that sticking with a passion really pays off.

If you like detail and creativity in design this show is for you. It’s certainly for me.

The Changing Picture on Food Health

Food has crazy effects on me sometimes. I’ve never been one of those picky types who only eats certain things. Sure when I was a kid there were foods I didn’t like, mostly vegetables like carrots and asparagus. I grew out of that though and I love to try new things. I like spicy stuff but I need to take it easy because it doesn’t process as easy as it used to. Suddenly though a lot of what I eat makes me queasy. I can’t tell what though since I eat a lot of different types of food. The thought of having to cut out whole food groups because of stomach irritation is too depressing to comprehend.

I like the summers because double up on the amount of fruit. Strawberries and watermelon are only good in the summer so I buy a lot of them. I take a container to work every day. As for vegetables I do the same but reluctantly. I eat them because they’re good for me not because I like the taste. I started doing this about 3 years ago, taking fruit and vegetables to work. If nothing else it keeps me from filling up on chips and cookies. And I still get the benefits of balance, which if the ‘pyramid’ is correct, is essential to a healthy diet.

I say “if the pyramid is correct” because new information about food seems to trickle out daily. In the past couple of years ‘sacred cows’ of nutrition have been tipped over in the fields of scientific discovery. My favorite example is the “How much salt is too much?” debate. For over 200 years the link between high salt intake and high blood pressure was taken as doctrine. Today it might be changing. Some nutritionists are arguing for taking more of it. Mostly though it seems some of the early research suggesting high intakes of sodium (more than 2.5 grams per day) caused hypertension. Turns out it isn’t so simple.

Research by the Framingham Offspring Study (2017) showed participants who keep their sodium intake to less than 2.5 milligrams per day showed higher blood pressure rates than those that consumed higher quantities.  Although the research expected to show a link low sodium intake and high blood pressure, the ones who increased both sodium and potassium showed the lowest blood pressure. The opposite was true for the low sodium low potassium group. We don’t know what the rates might have been without the potassium, but the study covered 16 years and included over 2500 people who had regular (healthy) blood pressure rates at the beginning. None of this suggests more salt alone is good for you, but it does show that other factors come into play.  

Another sacred cow to get tipped over is the ‘proof’ that saturated fats lead to clogged arteries and an increase in bad cholesterol. Most people take it as doctrine that too much dairy and red meat increase the risk of heart disease due to the high fat content. Some early trials (done in the 1970s) showed that countries with high saturated fat diets also had high rates of heart disease. It was assumed that fat raised cholesterol and cholesterol in the blood clogged arteries and raised risks for heart disease. Most of current research shows mixed information on saturated fats, but failed to show that it clogs arteries.  

If nothing else this shows how little studies that aim to prove something specific run into problems. Sometimes the data is misinterpreted and sometimes the methodology is flawed. A popular Finish study showed a “50% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality” to patients that had once been on a high intake of saturated fats. Once they switched to a lower fat diet they improved. But the study had major control problems, over half the participants left before it completed. The myth of saturated fats and heart disease persisted though.

I glanced at a quick summary (of current research) done by the nutrition coalition because their conclusions surprised me.

“Regarding the observational evidence, meta-analyses of this data consistently find no association between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, there is a substantial observational finding that low consumption of saturated fats is associated with higher mortality and higher rates of stroke.

At the very least it’s fair to say we don’t know as much as we thought we did. Could saturated fat cause heart disease? Sure, but it isn’t definitive and if scientific studies can’t be replicated how ‘scientific’ are they really?

 It’s because of endless research, claims, counter research and counter claims that I don’t follow strict eating habits. Moderation is probably the best approach to eating, so far at least, no one thinks exercise is bad. I’ll admit to discounting things I don’t agree with though. Call it selection bias for the consumer. If I hear that coffee is great for the heart I think “I knew it! Perfect, Yes I will take a to-go cup” It doesn’t matter what the specifics of the research. I love coffee so naturally I agree. Studies that suggest negative effects of coffee on the central nervous system are “total nonsense!” and I stop reading.  

So what’s going on with all the studies, counter-studies and different interpretations? One possibility is this, small dietary changes have big consequences; the human body is more complex than we realize, changes in diet are tough to draw grand conclusions about. Also, in the same way that microscopes become more complex every couple of years and are able to see more detail, scientific research gets more specific with better information.

Even when controlling for certain factors like age, ethnicity, and lifestyle factors, bodies process foods differently. Some are sensitive to gluten and dairy, others don’t function well without a lot of a lot of water. To say nothing of the huge impact that heredity has on each body. Each person may go through changes in diet during their lifetimes Physiological makeups are altered with better or worse food choices. I drink twice as much water on a daily basis as I did 10 years ago. How has this affected other functions, organs, metabolism, and blood pressure? Probably.

With big health research projects, like the ones from Harvard and Johns Hopkins, the goal is to study a particular subset, like hypertension and sodium. It reminds me of what economists do when they try to influence a particular subset of the economy. If they need banks to start loaning on a larger scale they have the Fed buy bonds to increase the amount of cash on hand for lending. It works but there all always consequences to tweaking the money supply. Prices for things like groceries and electronics rise but credit is easier to get. One problem gets targeted while others are ignored. Increasing sodium or fat or potassium might show better overall health in one person, while worse health in another.  

Testing whether or not some health issue was better understood because of the study is tricky because changing even small portions of a person’s diet can affect the whole body. Its complex physiology (like the economy) is dependent on an array of processes that work in tandem, only a few of which are food related.

I realize that medical studies are the best process we have for researching effects of food and health; they represent a statistical average of the population at a given time. But public policy is written in response to current research that could change in a few years. For this reason I’m skeptical about sweeping changes to laws that require specific levels of salt, corn syrup, gluten, saturated fat, and trans fats that manufactures must adhere to. Besides, it isn’t the business of lawmakers lay out recipes for producers to follow.  

Individuals should make decisions based on whatever foods they enjoy or don’t.

 Speaking of which, I have a half gallon of peanut butter cup ice cream in the freezer calling my name. Later.

  

Drug Legalization: The Human Cost

I’ve been listening to a lot of self-described Libertarians explain their position on drug legalization. I don't mean marijuana. I mean all drugs. They frame it as a ‘liberty’ issue (obviously). To paraphrase, governments shouldn’t be allowed to set limits on personal freedom. Drugs constitute personal choice and are therefore off limits for enforcement. Cartels and gangs are powerful because of the money they make from illegal sales. This keeps them strong and violent. Making all drugs legal would remove their power and keep petty drug users out of jail.

I don't pretend all pro-legalization types are drug users themselves, but it’s disheartening when a major social crisis destroying families and communities is said to be an issue of liberty.  I’ll try to be fair because a lot of the writers I like (Kevin Williamson, Megan McArdle) support drug legalization. But nothing says insane like allowing someone to burn their house down and standing back to watch because “It isn’t my mess”.

Legalization would increase the number of addicted and add a monumental burden to social services, not to mention ruin a generation of kids. Keeping laws in place ensures a lot of people will never try them or at least not use as often. Removing the punishment removes the stigma.

Almost everyone agrees the ‘war on drugs’ feels like a loss. Not because law enforcement hasn’t had success. Drug busts and high profile arrests do happen on occasion but the sheer volume of abuse and violence tells a story of loss. The drug war will always be difficult because of the high demand for drugs. High demand means suppliers (local and foreign) rake in cash. The money creates incentive to produce more. More production means increasing security and enforcement to protect the product. The violence from street gangs and large cartels leads to turf wars, reckless killing and paying off officials. If you want a good picture of what happens when a drug economy takes hold, check out Mexico.

Libertarians will say “Mexico is a violent hell-hole BECAUSE the substances are illegal; making them legal would eliminate the violence”. But making drugs legal will only cut down on some of the crime. The violence is tied almost solely to black markets, it doesn’t matter what product or service is offered. Members of street gangs and cartels won’t suddenly apply to law school because drugs are legalized, they’ll move on to the next thing. They’re power comes from operating in an illegal environment. Mostly that means vices like prostitution, gambling, and narcotics.

Gambling is legal in a lot of states as long as you go to a casino. Yet it isn’t hard to find illegal games or unsanctioned betting. If drugs were legal they would likely operate in a similar way. They could be sold through licensed federal (or state) facilities where the quality gets approved by federal officials. But what would stop illegal sellers and cartels from undercutting official sales with unofficial lower quality stuff? What makes proponents of legalization think the black market would dry up? It goes against every historical understanding of market forces. Remember Eric Gardner who was choked on a New York street by police trying to arrest him? He was selling cigarettes (a legal product) without a license, a common practice when prices are too high.

Another justification for legalizing is in cutting down the number of prisoners in overcrowded prisons. I’m sympathetic to this argument, but large populations of prisoners should not be a reason to overturn sound policies. Tweak some things on the margins, like offering more work release and lower sentencing. My first thought when hearing we have the largest prison population in the world is, “We have a big problem with drugs”. Libertarians hear that and think, “We have a big problem with laws”.

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, than the reaction to legal drugs would be runaway social costs. We already have a heavy social cost with illegal drugs and only a part of that is because of violence. A lot of it is just ordinary drug addiction, the kind that states spend millions on every year through rehab programs, counseling and family services. Families with addicts suffer immense pain and lose years fixing damaged health and broken lives, wrecked relationships. Pro-drug enthusiasts want to add an extra layer of destruction to the already bleak national picture. Legalization makes it more likely that others will try it and become addicted. 

Legalization is the lie of ‘choice’ gone too far. At some point your ‘freedom’ interferes with others and the mess you leave behind is what others clean up. I think at the core of legalization theory is something selfish and cruel that makes proponents tout liberty while encouraging slavery. Liberty is a wonderful thing and restrictions on personal choice should be small and measured. But drug addiction strains social welfare and destroys lives, not only for the addict but also those in his/her circle. Removing the law against it opens up a real chance that a generation of Americans (kids especially) will be lost to reckless social engineering.

    

Libertarians tend to see the individual as the highest moral authority in a society. But individuals make choices that affect others in the process of discovering their individuality. Laws against keeping a Bengal Tiger in your apartment aren’t because the predator might kill you. They exist to keep the people near you unharmed. Personal choice ceases to be ‘choice’ when your obsession gets out of control.

 In other words, your choice takes away the liberty of others. Liberty goes both ways after all.  

I Peter 2:16 (MEV) "As free people, do not use your liberty as a covering for evil, but live as servants of God".