Regulating Pot

Yesterday the supreme court decided that marihuana can in effect not be used as a drug in the US, even if some states have regulations that permit the use of marihuana when prescribed by a physician.

I wonder why the government needs any regulation for pot. People that use it are adults, if they want to be potheads - let them. They are not destroying my health, they do not put our society in danger, they do not do anything that puts a strain on public life. Let them have their pot.

Legalizing (or simply not enforcing pot laws) has several advantageous side effects:

• It frees a large part of the law enforcement from handling pot cases, leaving more time for serious offenses (rape, murder etc.)
• It takes the fear from the pot user, permitting him/her a better live without criminal convictions (and eventually a better integration into a pot-free part of society)
• It reduces crime because no criminal acts have to be committed in order to get the pot or the money for the pot

Of course there has to be some enforcement (for instance in traffic law) but generally decriminalizing the average pot user has advantages for society. You think it can't done? Ask your Dutch friends what effect decriminalizing pot had on their society.

Sometimes less government and fewer regulations are better.

Get Rid of the Lie...uh...DeLay

Here is something I have been wondering about: why does the Republican Party want to be associated with a person that has shown several ethical lapses? Is it the 'moral values' the Republicans preach? Or is it the parties requirement to keep its donors and sponsors coffers open?

Here is some background: Tom DeLay the House majority leader has been admonished by the house ethics committee several times. Noting very serious, but serious enough that at least some Republican member of the house ethics committee voted with his Democratic colleagues to admonish DeLay. (Here are the rules of the ethics committee)

Now there are new allegations about DeLay (CNN, MSNBC, Houston Chronicle):

• he supposedly took trips paid for by lobbyists, which is prohibited by house rules
• his associates illegally transferred money between Texas and Washington, and his associates face convictions for their action (DeLay is still investigated and may face possible criminal charges)

Also noteworthy is DeLays attempt to change the House ethics rules in order to prevent his admonishment by the House ethics committee. His action made the Republican house leadership the laughing stock of Washington and resulted in a backlash that ended with the reinstatement of the old House ethics committee rules.

Now here is what I do not understand: How can the party accept being dragged down by a single person? DeLay is cited over and over again for his ethics rule violations, and as a consequence it appears that only Republicans violate those rules. The media focus the attention on DeLay such that by the day it seems more like the Republicans and the Republican Party has very low ethics standards. (How come there is no control in the Republican Party that prevents that such lapses appear first in the House and not in a party committee?)

For the sake of the Party, get rid of Tom DeLay as the House Majority leader. No one person is that important that the Party's name can be dragged into the dirt just because of his or her loose standards and low ethical values. DeLay is damaging the Party, and it may be better to let him go now than to have this circus going on anytime longer. DeLay may not be guilty -- but even then is he damaging the party more than he is helping at the moment.

Tom, do the Republicans another favor - resign.

Protected from Science

The administration has intervened to prevent the publication of a research paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Then topic was bioterrorism readiness and especially the safety of our food supply. The study was done by Lawrence M. Wein, an economics professor at Stanford.

The study concluded that it is very easy to poison milk with botulinum (that's right the same stuff as in Botox), leading to a high number of affected people and potentially killing a high number of people that consume the tainted milk.

The study was discussed in an op-ed piece in the New York Times (now in the archive), but the full piece is available here (pdf). CNN also picked up the story. (Here is a paper on botulinum as a biological weapon.)

This is the first time the government has directly intervened to prevent the publication in the interest of national security. However, if you are just a bit proficient in biology it is not too difficult to imagine how such an attack might be done. It may also be necessary to remind our government that its role is not to prevent the publication of such a story, but to prevent (through regulations etc.) that such an attack is possible. So, secure our milk supply (because this story shows a big hole), secure our ports (cargo is still not screened), secure our planes (cargo...). There is enough to do for the government to secure the homeland and its pace was slow in the last four years. Get to work...

Such studies as the one mentioned above should be encouraged, they identify the weak spots and are invaluable for a safe and secure America. Dear Researchers, go on with such studies, and don't be intimidated by the government - future generations will thank you for your work.

Learn to fly......with Jesus

I am worried about our military, especially the Air Force. A study by Yale University has shown that the Air Force Academy has a problem with Evangelical Christians, which seem to have infiltrated the Academy.

The Associated Press reported several incidents:

• The No. 2 commander has been reprimanded for promoting National Prayer Day.
• Evangelical Christians have harassed cadets who do not share their faith.
• There have been anti-Semitic slurs.
• One of the top chaplains at the school was fired because she criticized proselytizing at the academy (so she claims).

There is another very disturbing report in the Washington Post and a story in USA Today. Those allegations are not new, most were originally contained in a report by the Yale Divinity School. (How bad is it that a Christian religious institution complains about Christian religious intolerance?!?) A paper from AU (pdf) is available. Some people are actually fuming that the story is such a stir, here (part II, III), here and here too (poor ideologues).

The reason I am worried is that our Air Force is weakened in two respects. First the onslaught of proselytizing evangelicals may make our Air Force weak when it comes to defending the country. What do you think those people are tend to defend, their faith or their country? Well, in such circles it is usually 'I am a Christian first...'! Of course, that leaves us (and the Air Force) weak on the real assignment to defend our country. It may also discourage smart and sharp people from other religious backgrounds from enlisting in the Air Force, leaving it as an average defense institution. Clearly that is too weak for our American standards.

The second reason is that religious intolerance seems to be permeating larger and larger parts of our governmental institutions. The AFA may be the first example of this, and there may be more to come. This is of course a dangerous path, and action by the government may be required in the future. Nothing drastic, but some steps towards reducing the religious influences on our government. For the military there is already a precedent that could be used: Don't Ask Don't Tell. It would have to be modified of course: You can worship and do whatever you want to satisfy your religious needs (even at the military), but as soon as it starts impacting your service or other soldiers you are out. (Such a solution is unlikely with the present administration being led by a born-again Christian, but Rumsfeld may have the stamina to push some things through.)

Let's hope the Air Force gets its act cleaned up. Soon. We need a strong Air Force for the large challenges ahead.

The Baguette Pipe-Dream

The French don't seem to get it. They talk nice and things sound good - but when it comes to practice they are weasels. A good point to observe this was last weekends referendum on the European constitution. The French voted against adopting the proposed constitution, killing the prospect of establishing a European constitution for the foreseeable future.

Now remember the last few years: Talk of a new world order, the European Union (EU) as a power center in the world (the others being the US and China), the EU as a mediator and supporter to the sensical approach to world politics, guided by higher standards of morale in politics. All that of course under the leadership of the French.

Well, you can surely shoot yourself in the foot, and the French appear to be masters in that discipline. Not only did they kill of all the ideas mentioned above, they also disqualified themselves as leaders in Europe. I already see some European conventions where proposals by the French can be rejected by ...... (Spain/Sweden/Slovenia/Malta...fill in your favorite EU country) just by referencing their fast adoption of the EU constitution. I'd love to see the faces of the French delegation when that happens. :-))

Of course the EU will remain strong. France will lose some of its influence and its 'moral' leadership. The empty power spot left by France will be filled by some other country, probably Spain, Poland or Sweden or shared between those countries. The center of the EU may also shift, away from the French-German center to some other area, away from its western border. And the French can thank themselves for that.

But the biggest twist in the story is that the French gave a moral victory to the man they love to hate. President Bush is certainly pleased with the referendum: It clearly showed the world that trusting the French is not really wise, your fate is much better if you trust an established power such as the US. And it showed that people riding high on the wave of popularism fall deep and leave a broken promises behind.