The presidential campaign is everywhere. It’s an evil seductress and I try to ignore it, but in spite of my best efforts, and I’m not proud of this, every once in a while it triggers thoughts. Thoughts such as: Leading in the polls does not necessarily mean you’re a leader. The will of the people is not always a good thing. “Majority Rules” may not always be a good way to play. An angry crowd left unchecked can head off in dark directions. Sometimes people need a leader to redirect their energy in a more honorable and sustainable way. Slavery and segregation come to mind; popular in their time, but not much to brag about in retrospect. They were each well supported by large segments of the population though. Internment of the Japanese during World War II; didn’t need that either. Fanning fears and appealing to the basest and most self-serving human emotions is not a good measure of a leader; those seem more like the actions of someone who will follow wherever the crowd leads.
Sometimes you just need a princess pillow
Even if you’re Henry.
Or sometimes a box on the floor will do.
We watched so much football on Sunday
I think I got a concussion.
We planted a mandevilla
We planted a mandevilla when we got home this fall.
It’s doing well. Even giving us a few winter flowers.
And graceful intertwining curves.
It’s doing well. Even giving us a few winter flowers. And graceful intertwining curves. I’ve been thinking about drugs
I think that some people are going to use drugs no matter how bad it is for them or how much it costs. If the person using drugs doesn’t have the money for their drugs, they will commit crimes to get the money. The amount of crime a person is willing to commit is disproportionate to the benefit received; the criminal will cause $1,000 of damage to get $100 of benefit. Unencumbered by knowledge as I am, that’s what I think. I also think that if there is a demand for drugs, some people are going to fill that demand no matter the penalty or cost. The market will provide. The market is not driven by bad guys forcing us to use drugs, it is driven by the market responding to our demand. The harder it is to fill that demand, the more the drugs will cost. The more drugs cost, the more crime that will be done by the users to pay for their drugs (and the more violence by the sellers for the right to provide those drugs). Our government has a huge role in the price of drugs. It’s not the drugs themselves that cost a lot. Drugs are essentially simple and cheap. The harder we prosecute the drug supply chain though, and the more scarce we make drugs, the more expensive we make them. The more drugs cost, the more crime and violence will be committed in their name. So that brings me to wonder: If we stopped our drug intervention would the price of drugs plummet? If drug prices plummeted and they were legally available, would crime decrease? If drug prices plummeted and they were legally available, would a major reason for drug cartels to exist have just gone away? If we spent even a small fraction of that money we just quit spending on prosecution and incarceration, on education and treatment instead, would the number of drug users decline? Just wondering…. And I think we’re not the ones paying the biggest price for our war on drugs. Imagine the effect this has on our neighbors to the south. We have to tolerate mostly property crime from the users that can’t afford the drugs they want, and pay for their capture and incarceration. That’s nothing compared to the reign of terror in Mexico from the drug cartels, with kidnappings, ransoms, and murders run rampant. Please, somebody help me. I’m trying to sort through this logically and I keep coming up with illogical conclusions; like the more we spend on the war on drugs, the greater the cost to all involved. Nothing could really be that simplistic or backwards, right?