Compassion and Tolerance (continued)

Last time I wrote about how the terms compassion and tolerance are often used, even in academic circles, without sufficient regard for clear definitions.  It’s the old “I know it when I see it” approach.  I explained how compassion is a tricky concept.  Just seeing someone with difficulty and automatically lending assistance may provide satisfaction to the helper while being a disservice to the one with the problem.

Now I will look at tolerance the same way.  Again, it’s impossible to see into the mind, so the only evidence we have of another’s tolerance is observed behaviors that fit a clear definition.  Tolerance is usually defined as a willingness to tolerate opinions or behaviors one does not necessarily agree with.

Ideally, everyone would be tolerant of any opinion or action that does not cause a direct threat to one’s personal safety and wellbeing.  Let speakers speak on any subject to anyone interested in listening.  Let demonstrators demonstrate peacefully without disrupting the lives of others.  Let people marry anyone they want to.  Let people take the drugs to cure disease or just to feel better, e.g. pain relievers, caffeine, heroin.

The only exception should be for direct responsibility:  parents for children, teachers for students, military leaders for their troops, etc.  But this gets tricky in a couple of ways.  In a society where everyone’s medical costs become everyone else’s responsibility because of insurance, perhaps your health habits should be everyone else’s business.  But in this area we tend to pick and choose.  Smokers are shunned, but to scorn or shame the overweight is seen as rude and insensitive.  Alcohol is acceptable in moderation, but recreational drugs are illegal.

Also, for Christians, Jews and even Muslims there is that pesky chapter in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel where the Lord orders everyone to step in to keep your neighbor from sinning or you will suffer the same punishment.  It concludes in Chapter 3, verse 21:  “But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”  Based on that premise, some opposed to same-sex marriage, for example, are not haters at all.  They genuinely care about the salvation of others and themselves.  (I warned it would get tricky.)

It seems tolerance must be narrowed down to make any sense.  A reasonable starting place is the current commotion over freedom of speech where college students and others on both political extremes heckle, shout down and even riot to keep speakers from delivering their message.  It’s a safe bet that these people have not been inspired by reading Ezekiel nor are they doing it out of concern about their health insurance premiums.  Instead they seem to feel that allowing contrary opinions is immoral, dangerous, or offensive.  They imply by their actions that everyone else is too stupid or ignorant to resist the lure of a faulty or insidious argument, so they must step in to silence the messenger.  Apparently, the alternative of answering ideas with ideas is passé.  The default becomes shouting accusations of being evil – either fascist or communist.  If anyone needs an example of a critical thinking disaster, this is it.

A more passive way to shut people up is to claim their opinions are offensive.  It’s more acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils down to the same thing.

If we can’t even agree on something as basic as freedom of speech, that tolerance we all seem to cherish ends up in practice being tolerance only for what we deem appropriate.  We have little tolerance for those intolerant people who don’t agree.

When concepts like compassion and tolerance are promoted as worthy goals, people tend to nod in agreement.  Deeper thought shows that the two are not as straightforward as they appear.  There is a lot of room for discussion and many instances for honest disagreement.  When clearly defined, compassion and tolerance are probably good things, but both require a degree of moderation and a less cavalier acceptance of vague, unexamined notions.

Whenever we try to peer into the minds of others to find compassion or tolerance, or for that matter, economic understanding, discipline, responsibility, critical thinking, and perspective, the only way to get there is through observation and interpretation of behavior based on clear definitions or examples.  That is why I have posted 670 (and counting) explanations and examples to foster agreement about what we are looking for in the five key dimensions and the dangerous consequences of not finding it.

Behavioral Aspects of the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs has been going on for 50 years with little to show for it except on-going criminal/gang activity, the highest prison population in the world and the occasional headline story of a “drug-lord” or “kingpin” captured or convicted – cheered by the police and press as a great victory, and cheered by the next in line in the drug cartel as a long-awaited promotion.  But are we making any progress?

Based on a survey of 67,800 one source found:  “In 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older – 9.4 percent of the population – had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002.”  No progress there.  And the CDC puts this number at 10.1% in 2015.  Up again.  US News piles on with a report of a “heroin epidemic” showing a 15-year increase.  So the main purpose has been thwarted, and we get the bonus of unintended consequences.

One major failing is how drug prohibition keeps organized crime in business and funds terrorist activities – Afghanistan being the world’s number one producer of heroin.  The dynamic of illegal activities and violence in America is eerily similar to that of alcohol prohibition in the last century although drug-war proponents refuse to admit it.  Today the government has, in effect, handed control of a multi-billion dollar market to violent criminal networks and gangs overseas, in Mexico and in the streets of our major cities.  With all the money involved the incentive is far too great to persuade them to give up even when faced with threats of arrest or being murdered by rival operators.

A second failure comes with the increased danger of the products.  Drugs are dangerous themselves, but the danger escalates when illegal, often backroom operations are involved in production and distribution.  Buyers can’t be sure of what they are getting, purity or dosage.  The danger is many times greater than unintentional overdoses of prescription drugs with that info available right on the label.

Another danger comes to law-abiding citizens indirectly from higher exposure to the criminal element on city streets and from muggings and property crimes to support the habit (with fewer resources freed up to investigate those other crimes).  Those already addicted who want help have less chance of getting it, afraid of reporting their problem.  And what about kids asleep in the bedroom while their parents cook up meth in the kitchen?

Just as legalizing alcohol did not lead to a spike in drinking, there is no reason to believe that legalizing drugs would lead to a sharp increase in drug use.  Colorado and a few other states have become laboratories to test the validity of this assumption while enjoying added benefits.  Yesterday Fox Business reported that Colorado “made an extra $200 million in tax revenue last year from legalized marijuana sales” and New Jersey expects to raise $300 million a year.  Revenue from marijuana sales no longer goes to street gangs, Mexican smugglers or other shady characters.

Legalizing drugs is not an endorsement of drug abuse any more than legal liquor is an endorsement of alcoholism.  The idea would be to control quality and regulate supply.  No one wants to see fellow citizens struggle with drug addiction; but the current situation is unacceptable, and doing the same thing, or doing the same thing with increased intensity, will not change the outcomes. 

It makes sense to take the same approach to the illicit drug abuse problem as we are taking to the more recent prescription abuse problem.  It should not be treated as a legal problem but a public health and education problem.  On balance, the failed war on drugs has been much more deadly and destructive than the drugs themselves, solely because the drugs are illegal, leading to deadly violence between warring factions, battles between the police and suppliers and harm to innocent bystanders from shootouts, chases and explosions.

But recreational drug use is immoral!  So are gambling and drinking, some say, and smoking and dancing and rock and roll!  Where do you draw the line?

Whose Fault Is It?

There is an old story of a burglar falling through a skylight as he is attempting to ply his craft and suing either the skylight company or the owner of the building he is trying to break into.  Details are vague, and I could not find a reputable reference – at least not of that happening in the United States.

I did find cases of a burglar suing a homeowner in California for shooting back at him and wounding him after he broke into the house and one of a burglar suing a homeowner for shooting him as he tried to get away.  In another instance, the armed robber of a pizzeria thought he was owed about a quarter of a million dollars for being treated too roughly when he was arrested.

These all seem laughable, but how do we feel when a mayor sues a pharmaceutical company because his city has a problem with drug overdoses and the crime associated with the drug trade?  That’s what the mayor of Everett, WA is doing according to CBS News.  He “is suing Purdue Pharma, maker of the opioid pain medication OxyContin, in an unusual case that alleges the drugmaker knowingly allowed pills to be funneled into the black market.”  The lawsuit is an attempt to recoup some of the millions spent on added police patrols, social workers and permanent housing for chronically homeless people to combat the spread of OxyContin and heroin abuse in the city.

When we are young, it’s common to blame our faults or inadequacies on inanimate objects – I wore the wrong shoes or the sun got in my eyes.  A few years ago the blame for all psychological problems was put on our parents.  But you can’t sue the sun or your parents, though in the latter case some have tried.

Today the perfect solution is to blame a big, faceless company and sue them for damages.  Blame the iPhone for not having the technology to prevent people from texting and driving.  Blame the Jeep for rolling down a hill when the driver failed to set the emergency brake before getting out.  Blame home tanning beds for the rise in skin cancer.  Or blame the drugmaker for not preventing the drugs from ending up in the black market.  Then expect companies to warn all customers not to misuse the product – don’t take the phone in the bathtub while it is plugged into the wall to recharge.  Every time a customer misuses a product, the company faces a potential lawsuit and then we wonder why our economy is bogged down by regulations, our costs are higher than they should be and every package is littered with often ridiculous warnings.

I'm sorry the city has a drug problem.  But shifting part of the cost of enforcement from the taxpayers to the drugmaker, does nothing to solve the core, behavioral problem.  It just raises the price of pain medicine for those who desperately need it and have nothing at all to do with the problem.  This is the lack of responsibility.  Blame the drugmaker (and their legitimate customers), not the abusers or ineffective city policies.  Perhaps a good argument in favor of legalizing all drugs is to give the mayor the tools to identify and sue the makers of the heroin as well.

A Few Ideas to Challenge Your Thinking

Last time I talked about how people today tend to live in their own “silos” or “echo chambers” with their own friends who stay friends by sharing the same thoughts and opinions.  When their beliefs are challenged, they turn inward looking for reasons to reject or ignore the new information or turn to their friends and like-minded news sources to relieve the tension.  The technical word for this psychological protection is confirmation bias.

Here are a few subjects to challenge widely held beliefs.  Test your reaction.

According to prevailing opinion, acupuncture is ancient and alternative, and therefore good.  News from Great Britain reminds us that acupuncture, like any treatment, should be able to prove its worth in well-designed clinical trials and everyday experience.  Medicine should never be judged on reputation alone or by individual testimonials.   The Guardian news tells us:  Acupuncture is no longer recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as a treatment for low back pain.  “The u-turn comes after a review of scientific evidence found that the practice was no better than a placebo in treating those living with low back pain and sciatica.”  After reviewing a large number of scientific trials for effectiveness, “there was still not compelling and consistent evidence of a treatment-specific effect for acupuncture.”  The National Health Service, the single payer healthcare in Britain, doesn’t want to pay for something that doesn’t work.

The Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (DARE) is used in nearly 80% of the school districts in the United States and in many other countries to discourage the use of alcohol and other drugs.  It’s important to know how effective it is.  The program is very popular and appealing.  It’s common to see it advertised on bumper stickers and promoted by schools and the media, but does it really work or is it a waste of time and money?  The news from alcoholfacts.org contradicts the conventional wisdom.  “Scientific evaluation studies have consistently shown that DARE is ineffective in reducing the use of alcohol and drugs and is sometimes even counterproductive -- worse than doing nothing. That's the conclusion of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 1 the U.S. Surgeon General, 2 the National Academy of Sciences, 3 and the U.S. Department of Education, 4 among many others. 5”  [Note:  I left their links in the quote for anyone who wants to delve deeper into specific sources.]

Locally grown is the new by-word for produce, despite problems Chipotle had last summer in a number of their locations.  We now have fresh vegetables in the grocery store year round, but that doesn’t seem to be good enough.  Some people are pushing for more locally grown produce claiming it’s fresher and better for you.  Fresher food generally tastes better and delivers more nutrients – that’s why I have a vegetable garden in the backyard every summer – but there is one fly in the ointment.  The assumption that the local food system is as efficient and better controlled than modern farming is wrong, as freakonmics.com reports.  “Today’s high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economies that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse.”  Local food is harvested with less efficient methods and delivered in smaller volume leading to higher price – good for the middle class foodie who endorses the practice but another hurdle for the poor.  Those who believe commercial farming is wasteful and polluting, have never seen farm equipment guided by computer and GPS to deliver a shot of fertilizer in the precise quantity to the exact spot at the time required.  It’s fine to support the farmer’s market, but those who endorse moving as much of the system as possible to a local paradigm are trying to turn a personal preference into a requirement that would be a burden on others who are either not so interested or not so well off.

As mentioned last time, sometimes doing the right thing flies in the face of doing what feels like the right thing.  It takes courage to change your own mind and additional courage to challenge the fanatics who refuse to consider new arguments or facts.

Drug of Choice

Can you believe it?  Back at the beginning of the 21^st century not only was caffeine legal, but in the big cities, coffee shops appeared on nearly every street corner.  Caffeine was a common additive to soft drinks and in higher doses to so-called energy drinks.  These products were available to children, and there are records of teenagers overdosing and even dying as a result.  Society at that time condoned it and would have been outraged at any suggestion to control or ban it.  Today, a little over one hundred years later we know better.  Only criminals, lowlifes and hoodlum teens would be caught trying to brew the illegal substance.  If caught, they face fines and imprisonment.  Its use leads to other criminal activity including robbery and battery.  It’s sad to see some of our admired celebrities fall into this habit, requiring extensive and repeated rehab.

The preceding is a possible news item from 2114.  It’s possible because today a similar news story could have been accurately written about practices in the early 1900s by substituting “cocaine” for “caffeine.”  The legality of drugs is driven as much by societal pressure as by science.  We see this as marijuana for medicinal use and, just last week, for recreational use becomes more widely legal.  Attitudes are shifting.  The USA Today reports that “fewer teens see [marijuana] as harmful and more smoke it. In 2013, one in 15 [high school] seniors reported using marijuana daily, up from one in 50 in 1993.”

Despite publicity about a war on drugs, drug use is quite prevalent in the US.  “In 2007-2008, 1 out of every 5 children and 9 out of 10 older Americans reported using at least one prescription drug in the past month.”  Over 10% of adults between 20 and 60 use prescription antidepressants and over 10% use prescription pain relief drugs.  The CDC also reports that over the past 10 years the use of five or more prescription drugs in the past month “increased from 6% to 11%.”

Prescription drug abuse is a major problem.  Since they are sometimes taken for recreational purposes, they do produce “a high” or some good feeling, though people who take them “for medicinal purposes” are reluctant to admit it.

As the use (and abuse) of prescription medication increases, opposition to legalizing “street drugs” remains strong, driven by the fear of addiction; but alcohol is addictive for some and people joke about needing caffeine to get going in the morning.  Some addictions carry a stigma, while others are referred to in an almost playful way.  As society defines and redefines what’s good and what’s bad, the laws follow.

As we continue to lose the war on drugs, it costs us in many ways.  We expend precious law enforcement resources.  We allow people to take some drugs with no guidance at all while other drugs contain long lists of warnings.  We tell people to report all drugs and even supplements to their doctors, but make that impossible (or at least unlikely) by branding some as illegal.  We encourage people to risk blowing up themselves, their houses and their children to manufacture illegal drugs.  We let them consume drugs of unknown purity purchased on the street.  We minimize the incremental risk of committing other crimes by making the drug habit criminal.  We give gangs and organized crime a channel to finance other illegal activities.  We fill prisons with non-violent offenders.  We forego billions in taxes.

At the same time we allow alcohol and other drugs to be taken in the society by those who work, drive, take care of children, etc.  Now with the expansion of affordable insurance coverage, even more people will be in a position to pressure their doctors to write unnecessary prescriptions.  The line between legal and illegal use continues to gray.

It’s time to put the utopian objections aside and make a realistic, objective cost/benefit assessment of the situation.