SoluProb™: Conversion Therapy


young-sad-lesbians

Presumed Problem

People are choosing to become homosexual when they should choose heterosexuality.


Solution

Religious and secular programs of Conversion Therapy (aka Reparative Therapy) aim to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.


Narrative

Homosexuality has been viewed variously in different societies and at different times in history, but it has been viewed negatively through most of American history. That negative view has been accompanied by a variety of punishments. In colonial Virginia, death was a possible punishment for being gay. Thomas Jefferson sought to replace that punishment with castration, but he was unsuccessful.

 

By comparison, Conversion Therapy or Reparative Therapy might seem a gentler solution: help gays switch to being straight. A variety of religioussad-gay-guys and secular programs were popular during the second half of the 20th century and into the beginning of the 21st. In some cases. individuals voluntarily sought conversion as an escape from the stigma of being gay. And in other cases the impetus came from the parents of gays.

The methods used in the attempt to change sexual orientations included “pray away the gay,” the use of prostitutes, electric shocks, hormones, and a long list of psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic techniques. During much of this period, homosexuality was officially regarded as a mental illness by many medical and psychological associations.

 

 


Was the Problem Real?

In 2001, the U. S. Surgeon General reported that there was no evidence supporting the possibility that sexual orientation can be changed, but that conclusion was contradicted by a psychoanalytic study by Dr. Robert Spitzer. The latter study was based on interviews with some 200 participants in conversion therapy programs, and Spitzer took their comments as evidence that sexual conversion was, in fact, possible. Ten years later, however, Dr. Spitzer retracted his conclusions and apologized to any gay people who had been hurt by his earlier, widely publicized, study. He acknowledged problems in his methodology and rejected his earlier findings.

It is now almost universally agreed within the medical and psychological communities that sexual orientation is no more a matter of choice than being right-handed or left-handed.( Interestingly, some lefties recall their parents trying to force them to switch to being right-handed. And that was about as successful as converting gays to straights.)

The Human Rights Campaign has compiled a list of some of the professional associations who have denied the efficacy of conversion therapy.

  • American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry
  • American Academy of Pediatrics
  • American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
  • American College of Physicians
  • American Counseling Association
  • American Medical Association
  • American Psychiatric Association
  • American Psychoanalytic Association
  • American Psychological Association
  • American School Counselor Association
  • American School Health Association
  • National Association of Social Workers
  • Pan American Health Organization (PAHO): Regional Office of the World Health Organization
  • Just the Facts Coalition

gay-guys

At the same time, former leaders of conversion therapy programs have publicly renounced such attempts to get the gay out. Nine such ex-leaders prepared a formal apology to the gay community. Time Magazine described the experience of one of the former leaders.

Yvette Schneider spent a little over a decade as an active participant and a leader in the gay conversion therapy movement. In other words, she spent years working to convince men and women that they could stop being gay, lesbian, or bisexual through suppression and therapy.

But in 2010 she began to see things differently. At the time, Schneider did not share her feelings with her colleagues, but that same year, she was let go from her position as the director of the women’s ministry at Exodus International— a leading sexual orientation conversion organization that closed in 2013.

“I realized that no one was actually saying, ‘I’m straight,” she explains, referring to the post-treatment disposition of the Exodus clients she saw. “You can go through years of therapy and what are you left with—shame?”

Here’s the bottom line. If you are secular in such matters, biology makes some people heterosexual and others homosexual. If you are religious, then God made that choice. Conversion therapy is a solution without a problem.

girl-friends


Negative Consequences

In their letter apology, the nine former conversion therapy leaders nicely summed up the kind of damage done by this unnecessary “solution.”

Conversion therapy reinforces internalized homophobia, anxiety, guilt and depression. It leads to self-loathing and emotional and psychological harm when change doesn’t happen,” the letter reads. “We now stand united in our conviction that conversion therapy is not “therapy,” but is instead both ineffective and harmful.

Not only has conversion therapy damage those who were subjected to it, but it perpetuates the view that homosexuality is wrong, evil, sinful, and unnatural. That is the view supports actions like those of the thugs who murdered Matthew Shephard, the Orlando 49, or countless others who have been shamed, beaten, or killed for the sexual orientation they were dealt at birth.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Wikipedia on Conversion Therapy

Human Rights Campaign

Time Magazine

SoluProb™: War on Terror

diagram

Presumed Problem

America is at risk of being invaded by Islamic terrorists who will impose Sharia Law.

Solution

We must make war on terrorists abroad and be willing to give up many of slash-terrorour freedoms to allow the authorities to fight terrorists here in America.


Narrative

Elsewhere on this website, I have suggested that President Bush made a tragic mistake by declaring the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as acts of war rather than crimes. Traditionally, wars are a conflict between nations, although Americans have been quick to declare a War of Poverty, a War on Drugs, and now, a War on Terror. We even speak of a War on Women and a War on Christmas. War seems never far from our minds, when war, in almost all cases, is the most costly, least constructive solution to the problems we all face.

Clearly, we have had some difficulty identifying our enemy in the War onosama-poster Terror, since there is no Terror Republic or Union of Terror. So the War of Terror initially identified Iraq as the enemy even though they had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, nor were they planning to make war on the USA.

Some in the USA were willing to shift the enemy to the Islamic religion, and some Muslims in the Middle East were willing to support that reframing, calling themselves the only True Islamic Caliphate.

Soon the world was confronted with a movement known in the Middle East and parts of Europe as Daesh–often translated as “to trample and silouettescrush.” It is intended as an insult and a denial of the nationhood suggested by the the term Islamic State in the abbreviations, ISIS or ISIL. Ironically, whenever we use the terms ISIS or ISIL, we are granting statehood to the terrorist movement known as Daesh by those more directly confronting it.


Was the Problem Real?

Terrorism is real, especially in the Middle East and less extensively in Europe. However, the chance that you will be killed by “Islamic terrorists” in the USA is dwarfed by the likelihood of your dying at the hands oflightning-strike_Gk8zdCIO_L “Christian terrorists,” drive-by shootings, drunk drivers, lightning, or prescription-drug overdoses. While the risk is above zero, it is tiny.


Negative Consequences

One of the early consequences of the declaration of war on terrorism was the Patriot Act, passed by Congress on October 26, 2001, with the official title of “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” It was and remains controversial. Here are just a few of the actions allowed by the Act.

The Patriot Act allows “sneak and peek” searches of homes and libertybusinesses without the knowledge, let alone permission, or those who live or work there. Libraries can be forced to tell government agents what books you have taken from the library–and they are prohibited for letting you know that happened. The Act provides for sophisticated monitoring of telephones and emails.

“Suspected” terrorists can be arrested and held without an attorney indefinitely. If such suspects are brought to trial, those trials can be heldguantanamo in secret military tribunals. There is no guarantee of a trial by jury, no right to examine evidence, and an absense of other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Operation TIPS program initially encouraged Americans to report anyone they thought might be a terrorist, though that program has evidently been cancelled. However, this illustrates the paranoia and hysteria engendered by putting the defense of terrorism on a wartime footing.

Some law enforcenent officials say the provisions of the Patriot Act have allowed them to prevent some acts of terrorism. Obviously, I am not in a bombposition to verify or deny such claims, but I would point out that criminal acts, even acts of terrorism, have been dealt with effectively prior to the Patriot Act. In an earlier post on the US Invasion of Iraq in 2003, I reminded us of the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. In that instance, President Clinton chose to frame the attack as a crime, and the existing law enforcement agents went into action. Eventually, the attackers were identified, arrested, tried, and punished. No Constitutional rights were set aside in that instance.

No one wants us to be defenseless against foreign or domestic acts of terror, but framing that defense as a War on Terror creates more problems than it solves. Except for the creation of a War on Terrorism, there would been no justification for invading Iraq, no destruction of Saddam Hussein’s heavy-handed control of radicals there, and very likely no Daesh. Thousands of American deaths and countless thousands of Iraqi deaths would have been avoided. It is hard to fathom the amount of devastation that has resulted from the “War on Terror”–so far.

 

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Global Issues

Alternet, 5 Ways the War on Terror Has Changed Your Life

Foreign Policy Journal, ISIS: The “unintended consequences” of the US-led war on Iraq

Freedom House, The Civil Liberties Implications Of Counterterrorism Policies: Full Chapter

SoluProb™: More Babies

 


empty-cradleNote: 

This post was initially entitled, Birth Dearth. However, my previous practice has been to name posts after the Solution without a Problem rather than the presumed problem. Hence the name change.

Presumed Problem

The reduced fertility rate in the USA will cause economic and other problems.


Solution

Encourage Americans to have more babies.

crawling-babies

Narrative

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich and David Brower published The Population Bomb, which was the first serious warning about overpopulation since Thomas Malthus published several editions of An Essay on the Principle of Population between 1798 and 1826. The Population Bomb led to the formation of Zero Population Growth (now Population Connection) and other research and activist organizations. Overpopulation became a hot button issue. It was seen as the chief cause of world hunger, resource depletion, and pollution, as well as aggravating international conflict, public health problems, species extinctions, and a host of other problems.

Despite the widespread concern and activity since 1968, the world’s crowdpopulation has more than doubled from 3.5 billion to 7.4 billion. The UN now predicts world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050. The population of the USA has increased by more than half since 1968 from 207 million to 32o million).

Though world and American population has continued growing at what many consider an alarming rate there have been some signs of progress. In fact, some developed nations have reduced their fertility rates to below replacement (2.1 births per woman). Currently, the average American woman bears 1.87 children; German women 1.44; British women 1.89; Japanese women 1.4; Taiwanese women 1.12; Russian women 1.61; Canadian women 1.59 to name just a few.

The decline in fertility rates in the USA and elsewhere has belly-globegenerated the term, “birth dearth,” suggesting there are too few babies being born, with the fear there will be too few young people entering the labor force to provide for the needs of growing elderly populations.

 


Was the Problem Real?

This is a complex matter. In the short term, some of the problems associated with the “birth dearth” are real. The American economy, and other capitalistic economies, are fundamentally dependent on population growth: ever more consumers and more workers. Perhaps no one is experiencing these problems more seriously than the Japan, who have been actually shrinking their population in recent decades.

In the long run, however, population growth is a huge problem, far overshadowing any short-term adjustment needs when populations stop growing. This is particularly obvious in the impoverished countries who cannot currently feed their populations–and their rapidly growing numbers make their problems all the more impossible. Burundi, in Central Africa, is on course to double their population in 22 years. Niger, in West Africa, with the highest fertility rate in the world (over 7 births per woman) could triple by 2050.

Brazil

Population growth is also a problem in the more prosperous, developed nations. Even wealthy countries have an impoverished underclass, and population growth increases their numbers and their needs. Moreover wealthier individuals have a greater per capita impact on the natural and social environments. They eat more, drive more, and waste more. They have larger lawns to water, a problem debated during the recent California drought.

However, focussing on the “birth dearth” in the USA, we must conclude the problem is simply non-existent. Yes, fertility rates have declined, but when immigration is added to the formula, America’s population continues to grow.

2000: 282.16 million

2001: 284.97 million

2002: 287.63 million

2003: 290.11 million

2004: 292.81 million

2005: 295.52 million

2006: 298.38 million

2007: 301.23 million

2008: 304.09 million

2009: 306.77 million

2010: 308.11 million

2011: 310.50 million

2012: 312.86 million

2013: 315.18 million

2014: 317.68 million

2015: 320.22 million

2016: 322.48 million

Pretty clearly, we are not running out of Americans. Some white supremacists may worry about the composition of the American population, and we sometimes hear blatant calls for more white babies, but any increase to population is a bad idea, regardless of race.


Negative Consequences

Frantically increasing the American fertility rate, would cause many problems, as I’ve already indicated. While an increase in new babies would benefit some businesses (you know who you are, Gerbers and Huggies), it would also require the society at large to provide increased medical services, housing, schools, libraries, truant officers, juvenile detention facilities, shopping centers, highways, etc. By the way, many of those needed expansions would reduce the land available for growing food, and we would need lots more food.

And given the unusually high standard of living of Americans as a whole, increasing our numbers has a more substantial impact on the planet than similar increases in developing countries. Adding a million Ethiopians presents big problems for Ethiopia, but adding a million Americans presents big problems for the whole world.

 

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Population Media Center

Global Fertility Rates

USA Population 2000-2016

Population projection

SoluProb™: Stand Your Ground Laws


Special Announcement

Other the past two months, I have posted a number of examples of what I’ve been calling Solutions without Problems (soluprobs). One of my purposes has been to engage others in this effort, and I want to start addressing that aspect now.

This post addresses what some feel is a solution without a problem: Stand Your Ground Laws. Rather than presenting my own analysis of this issue, I invite you to join with me and other viewers of the website in developing an analysis together. You’ll see below that I’ve asked questions regarding each topic in the analysis, and you can contribute to the answer of those questions with the Comment space below this post or by using the link at the top of the page. You can respond to all the questions or just some of them.

See the thoughtful comment by William Wann below, for example.

Depending on the responses I receive, I would like to create a composite post on the topic, and I would like to acknowledge any contributions you make to the exercise. (If you would like to participate but not be acknowledged, just let me know.)

Thanks in advance for your interest and your participation.


Presumed Problem

Innocent, law-abiding citizens were defenseless against armed intruders.


Solution

Laws that permit citizens to arm themselves and use lethal force, if necessary, to protect themselves and their homes.


Narrative

What are some of the key events leading up to the creation of Stand Your Ground laws? Examples of different states’ laws?


Was the Problem Real?

Are there any data that would suggest the initial, presumed problem was not a real one, that no solution was needed?


Negative Consequences

What have been some of the negative results experienced in connection with Stand Your Ground laws?


Sources

What are the sources you used in creating your responses?
© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved Terms of Service/Privacy

SoluProb™: Drug-test Welfare Recipients

Let me know what you think 

urinanalysis


Presumed Problem

There is a belief among some that welfare recipients will spend their welfare payments on drugs instead of food, medicine, clothing, and the like. Hence tax-payer dollars are possibly going to support drug abuse instead of helping the disadvantaged obtain necessities.


Solution

Make welfare recipients submit to drug tests as a condition for receiving support and revoke their payments if they test positive for drug use. It was  believed this would result in substantial savings for the government.


Narrative

The National Conference of State Legislatures indicates that there have been discussions about drug-use and public assistance for some time, but 2009-2011 saw and large number of programs proposed, several of which were enacted into law. As of March, 2016,

At least 15 states have passed legislation regarding drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients (Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.)

Some of the drug-testing programs were halted in federal courts as unconstitutional but a number have now been in effect for a number of years. We now have enough experience with such programs that we can assess both how big the problem was and how much money can be saved by throwing drug-users off the welfare rolls.

 


Was the Problem Real?

In 2015, Brian P. Kelly and Josh at Salon.com pulled together information to evaluate several state programs. For example, their review of the 2009 Arizona program produced this conclusion:

But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million….Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.

Arizona was not the only program to demonstrate the “problem” was not what law-makers had assumed, not was it the only one denied the financial windfall they expected to enjoy as they threw drug-users off the welfare rolls.

In one year, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee collectively tested 74,320 welfare recipients. In some cases, only recipients they believed to be users were tested. In these six states, a total of 424 of those tested produced positive results, or 0.6 percent, without even proving that welfare payments were used for the purchase of drugs in those rare instances. (Some people trade sex for drugs or do other favors.) Data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that 7.5 percent of the general public over 12 years of age currently use illegal drugs–mostly marijuana. So the “drug problem” among welfare recipients is less than one tenth what exists in the general public.

We have no reliable data regarding drug use among those politicians who pass bills for drug-testing welfare recipients. Surely Representative Trey Radel (R-FL) was not typical of the Congress, but after voting to require the drug-testing of Food Stamp recipients, he was arrested for cocaine possession and resigned from the Congress.

Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post commented:

Rep. Trey Radel voted in favor of drug-testing the folks who get food stamps.

In that case, why don’t we drug-test all people who get federal money? Let’s start with members of Congress!…

Yup, in Radel’s version of Absurdistan, it’s totally okay for a guy in a suit to use coke and collect a government paycheck, but a single mom who needs help buying milk for her kids has to be drug-tested before she gets one government dime.

 


Negative Consequences

Poor people have enough problems without having an additional serving of humiliation, which the testing results indicate was unwarranted. Drug-testing is an inconvenience for people working one or more minimum-wage jobs, and in some cases, the recipients are required to pay the costs of testing, though they may be reimbursed if the results were negative.

The financial situation is complex. In 2014, Missouri reportedly spent $336,297 to identify 48 drug-users. Arizona, with 142,424 welfare recipients between 2010 and 2014 only tested 19 recipients for a cost of $499.06. There is no report on the cost of administering the program aside from actual drug testing.

Florida has presented an especially complex situation. Governor Rick Scott has been strongly committed to requiring drug-tests for all welfare recipients as well as a random sampling of state workers. However, resistance by the ACLU, unions, and other parties forced the termination of the program after 4 months in 2001. Governor Scott settled the flurry of law suits at a cost of $1.5 million according to the Miami Herald: hardly the big savings tax-payers had been promised.

A different controversy arose over Governor Scott’s $62 million personal investment in Solantic, a health-services corporation already doing substantial business with the Florida state government. Some argued that Solantic could benefit further from a required drug-testing program. Perhaps to counter such criticisms, Governor Scott transferred his shares in Solantic to his wife. In any event, drug-testing of welfare recipients in Florida is on hold at present.

Overall, drug-testing welfare recipients has proven to be another solution without a problem. And as we’ve seen other cases, that “solution” caused a set of problems that didn’t exist before.

 

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/rep-trey-radel-expected-to-face-judge-on-charges-of-cocaine-possession/2013/11/20/b029caba-51ce-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/27/trey-radel-resign-congress-cocaine/4934741/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rep-trey-radels-arrest-inspires-a-brilliant-idea-lets-drug-test-members-of-congress/2013/11/21/8f19c51e-52e6-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/gop’s_inane_money_eating_sham_drug_tests_for_welfare_a_huge_failure/

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article25114639.html

SoluProb™: Resist Jade Helm 15 Invasion

Let me know what you think 
three-soldiers

Presumed Problem

In the summer of 2015, it was widely believed in Texas that they were about to be invaded by the United States Army in an operation labeled Jade Helm 15.


Solutionguard-poster

Governor Greg Abbot called upon the Texas National Guard to monitor the exercise and insure Texas was not under attack. Other public officials expressed concern.


Narrative

In fact, the Army did plan summer training exercises in a number of states: Texas, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and natl-guardUtah. Some 1200 Green Berets and Navy Seals would participate in Jade Helm 15: some playing the part of an invading force and others playing the part of the resistance. Most of the action would occur in unoccupied, arid terrain, but where some small towns were involved, residents were briefed in advance. The purpose was to train the military in how to avoid an invasion of the USA by hostile forces.

Nonetheless, some feared the “exercise” was a ruse with darker motives. Jim Shea, reporting in the Hartford Courant, nicely summed up the key elements of the conspiracy theory.

That Jade Helm 15 is actually a psychological operation aimed at getting people used to seeing the military on the streets so they will not be tipped off when the invasion actually happens.

That Jade Helm 15 is an international operation (UN vehicles have been spotted) whose goal is to seize everyone’s guns.

That the military plans to round up political dissidents.

In addition to the rounding up of dissidents and political leaders, Shea adds one final element in the conspiracy theory.Walmart

That the military is secretly using recently closed Wal-Marts to stockpile supplies for Chinese troops who will be arriving to disarm Americans. (I have to say this is my personal favorite.)

One public opinion poll found a third of registered Republicans in Texas believed invasion was in the offing. This included half of those supporting the Tea Party. So, there was concern in the general public, but how about the public officials who could calm those fears?

On April 28, 2015, Texas Governor Greg Abbott released the following letter:

To address concerns of Texas citizens and to ensure that Texas communities remain safe, secure and informed about military procedures occurring in their vicinity, I am directing the Texas State Guard to monitor Jade Helm 15.

During the Operation’s eight-week training period… I expect to receive regular updates on the progress and safety of the Operation.

During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed. By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz told Bloomberg News he had discussed Jade Helm 15 with the Pentagon and reached this conclusion:

We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many citizens don’t trust what it is saying.

Texas Congressman, Louie Gohmert, expressed his concerns this way:

Once I observed the map depicting ‘hostile,’ ‘permissive,’ and ‘uncertain’ states and locations, I was rather appalled that the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution.

Former Governor Rick Perry tried to offer some reassurance to Texans. While saying there was every reason to question the civilian leadership of the nation, he had complete faith in the men and women making up the U. S. military.


Was the Problem Real?

No. There was no invasion of the Southwestern U. S., no American citizens were taken prisoner. It was simply an hysterical conspiracy theory, though there may be some in the Lone Star State who still believe the National Guard fought off the invaders.


Negative Consequences

I suppose a negative of the “Solution” would be the cost of texas-signengaging the National Guard and the disruption of Guardsmen’s lives. In addition, the reaction put Texas on the plate of humorists and comedians across the country. One T-shirt read: “I went to Texas to fight Jade Helm 15 and all I got was this tinfoil hat.” In addition to making the state look silly, the widespread conspiracy theory and the public officials who seemed to take it seriously fueled the existing political paranoia in Texas and across the nation. We seem to have survived Jade Helm 15.

But watch out for the zombie invasion.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theories

Jim Shea, “Thank You Texas and Good Luck with the Invasion,” Hartford Courant, May 17, 2015 — http://www.courant.com/features/too-shea/hc-shea-weakinreview-0517-20150517-column.html

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/jun/19/doonesbury/doonesbury-says-greg-abbott-activated-texas-state-/

David Weigel, “Ted Cruz Says He Has Asked the Pentagon for Answers on Jade Helm 15,” Bloomberg Politics, May 2, 2015 – http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-02/ted-cruz-says-he-has-asked-the-pentagon-for-answers-on-jade-helm-15

David Knowles, “Worried about Operation Jade Helm? Texas Republicans Hear You,” Bloomberg Politics, May 5, 2015 – http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-06/4-texas-republicans-sympathetic-over-jade-helm-15-fears

 

 

SoluProb™: Outlaw Marijuana

Let me know what you think 

marijuana-buds

Presumed Problem

There has been a widespread fear that marijuana can drive people crazy, lead them to other drugs, initiate a life of crime, and possibly cause death. Those who have tried it tend to disagree with these horrific assessments.


Solution

Outlaw the use of marijuana, especially if it is used for pleasure.


Narrative

Marijuana (aka: cannabis, Mary Jane, grass, pot, weed, ganja, dope, herb, joint, pakalolo, tea, homegrown, doobie, and more) is illegal by federal law in the United States and, until recently, in all states of the union. This legal status dates back to the “Reefer Madness” caricature of the 1930s. injectingMarijuana is officially classified as a Schedule 1 drug, along with opium, LSD, morphine, heroin, and others. Cocaine, by contrast, is classified as a less dangerous drug: Schedule 2.

The outlawing of marijuana is now part of a broader “war on drugs,” a term first popularized during the Nixon administration. It is estimated that the current war on drugs in the USA costs some $51 billion a year.

The prohibition on marijuana has begun breaking down, however.  In Colorado (2012), Washington (2012), Oregon (2014), and Alaska (2014), possession of small amounts of marijuana became legal. In 2014, it was also legalized in the District of Columbia, though, as of this writing, some in the U. S. Congress are threatening to overturn that vote by District citizens.


Was the Problem Real?

At the outset, we reviewed some of the reasons given for outlawing marijuana in the first place: the “problem” for which banning grass was a “solution.”  We have now had enough experience with legalized marijuana use to begin evaluating whether there was a problem in the first place.

lighting-upSo far, there has still never been a recorded death due to marijuana: excluding someone getting stoned and falling off a cliff. There is ample evidence of deaths due to alcohol, tobacco, heroin, and other drugs, but none from marijuana.

How about marijuana as a gateway drug? There is no evidence to resolve this matter one way or the other, but some logic might be useful. When and where marijuana is illegal, users are required, by definition, to buy grass from criminals. Many of those criminals also sell other illegal drugs. It is reasonable to imagine that illegal drug-dealers will encourage marijuana purchasers to try something more potent (and with a higher profit margin for the seller).

Now consider the carefully scrutinized LEGAL merchants in, say, Colorado. How likely do you imagine it is that a pot store clerk will say, “I see you have a fondness for Acapulco Gold and Maui Wowie. Can I interest you in some meth, cocaine, or heroin?” And if logic isn’t enough, there has been no evidence of that gateway problem.

There is no solid evidence that marijuana is deadly by itself, nor, logically, would legal grass lead to harder drugs.


Negative Consequences

There is an inevitable comparison between the war on drugs and Prohibition from 1917 to 1933. The Volstead Act and the Eighteenth prohibition-beerAmendment to the U. S. Constitution heralded a violently colorful saga in American history, with Carrie Nation, the Anti-saloon League, and the Women’s Christian Temperance League, on the one hand, and the bootleggers such as Al Capone, on the other hand. In between were millions of ordinary citizens who managed to keep drinking anyway.

The illegal status of alcohol generated a number of negative side-effects. There was violence in law enforcement attempts to shut down “speakeasies,” for example. But there was also violent competition among those violating the law—most dramatically evidenced in the Saint caponeValentine’s Day Massacre. Perhaps the biggest difference between the drive-by shootings of the Prohibition era and the current war on drugs is that the cars of the 1930s had running boards where machine-gunners could stand.

The violence generated by Prohibition came to an end in one day: December 5, 1933. On that day, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment, and alcohol was once again legal. There was no longer a need for bootlegging nor the violent competition among bootleggers.

The most deadly side-effect of marijuana use is legal. In 2013, over many-hands-jail600,000 Americans were arrested for possession of marijuana. It has been estimated that more than 200,000 students have lost their federal financial aid eligibility due to drug convictions.

The total repeal of anti-manijuana laws would have an immediate impact on the imprisonment of young people guilty of lighting up a joint. Moreover, legalizing marijuana would automatically do away with the problems flowing from the illegal pot trade. There might very well be drive-by shootings and other violence associated with other drugs, but the most popular one would have been taken out of the equation.

Again, we see the the “problem” was not real, but the “solution” was disastrous.

 

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Source

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics, accessed July 14, 2015.

 

SoluProb™: Don’t Vaccinate Your Kids

Let me know what you think 

image


Presumed Problem

It has been asserted that vaccinations, such as flu shots or children’s innoculations are more dangerous than the illnesses they are intended to prevent.


Solution

Stop vaccination programs, especially for kids.


Narrative

It would be impossible to estimate how many human lives have been saved thanks to the imageresearch and experimentation of Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur in their developing the idea and procedures for immunization against diseases through vaccination. When people contract a disease like smallpox or influenza, their bodies set to work creating anti-bodies to counteract the disease. If they are lucky enough to survive the disease, they are subsequently immune to it. Vaccination involves infecting the patient with a very small dose of the disease, leading the patient’s body to create those anti-bodies that will protect against the real thing should the patient later be exposed to it.

You are probably familiar with this process in two ways. First, children in modern societies are routinely vaccinated against such diseases as diphtheria, typhoid, measles, mumps, and rubella among other potential threats. If you are older, you may have formed the habit of getting an imageannual flu shot and a periodic pneumonia shot. These have become standard fixtures in modern life. (I haven’t had the flu in years.)

There has always been a small degree of resistance to the practice of vaccinations, especially for young children, but that has been a distinctly minority view. Beginning in 2011, however, this resistance gained political currency and some politicians were urging parents to avoid vaccinating their children. In one well-known instance, then-Congresswoman and Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachmann reportedly was contacted by a supporter who said her child had developed autism subsequent to being vaccinated. Bachmann concluded from that story that vaccinations may cause autism, and the bandwagon began.

imageTwo years earlier, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, another Republican candidate for President, had ordered that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against human papilloma virus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. As the primary campaign heated up, Bachmann had an issue that distinguished her from Perry.

Soon, most politicians were being routinely asked where they stood on childhood vaccination. Many tried to evade the question, often taking the libertarian position that parents should decide for imagethemselves. Senator Rand Paul, M.D., went a step further, reporting that in the Swine Flu scare of 2009, more people died of the shot than of the flu. However, he offered no numbers to flesh out that claim.


Was the Problem Real?

There are so many forms of vaccine used with so many different kinds of people in different situations that it would probably be foolhardy to make global generalizations. However, there has been enough research on the 2009 Swine Flu epidemic that we can test the assertion made by Rand Paul.

During the pandemic itself estimates of deaths varied widely, partly due to a varying quality of medical reporting in different countries. Other factors complicated the accounting. Let’s say you are an older person, coping with a chronic cardiovascular problem. As long as you watch your imagebehavior and take your medication, you get by. However, the flu could very well push you over the edge and into cardiac arrest. The cause of death, then would probably be recorded as heart attack, even though the flu was what prompted your demise. For several years following the pandemic, it was commonly reported that the number of deaths was between 151,700 and 579,000—quite a range.

By 2013, an international group of scientists had evaluated and analyzed all the data available from around the world and concluded that as many as 203,000 people died of the swine flu. As large a number of deaths as that represented, Senator Paul asserted even more died of the flu shots.

Worldwide that year, it is estimated that fewer than 1500 people died of the flu shot, however. In short Dr. Paul’s report was off by more than a factor of more than 100 to 1. In case 1500 deaths worldwide still seems like a lot, it is worth noting that 22,000 Americans died that year due to reactions to presecribed drugs.

Clearly, people were better advised to get vaccinated than to avoid it. The problem he and his colleagues sought to “solve” didn’t exist. However, the “solution” had consequences of its own.


Negative Consequences

Many parents became so confused that they chose what they regarded as the conservative path and withheld vaccinating their children. One consequence was a widespread measles epidemic in imageCalifornia. Not only were schoolchildren suffering the preventable disease but vulnerable populations, such as the very elderly and very young were put at risk.

In the midst of this public health regression, another rumor began to spread. It was said that those who were vaccinated could infect those who were not. The medical community’s response was that (1) it was conceivable but would be extremely rare and (2) if it did happen, the unvaccinated party would “catch the vaccine,” not the disease itself. In other words, they would become vaccinated.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Bahar Gholipour, “2009 Swine-Flu Death Toll 10 Times Higher Than Thought,” LiveScience, November 26, 2013 – http://www.livescience.com/41539-2009-swine-flu-death-toll-higher.html – accessed September 24, 2015

The Skeptical Libertarian, “By the Numbers: Did more people die from the swine flu vaccine than from swine flu?” September 16, 2014 — http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/16/by-the-numbers-did-more-people-die-from-the-swine-flu-vaccine-than-from-swine-flu/ — accessed October 3, 2015

SoluProb™: Banning Sharia Law


Let me know what you think 
 gavel

Presumed Problem

Muslims in America may arrange for Qu’ran-based Sharia Law to govern states or other political subdivisions.


Solution

Amendments to state constitutions that prohibit the imposition of Sharia Law.


Narrative

In 2010, Oklahomans worried that the hawks “makin’ lazy circles in the ok-mapsky” might be Islamic terrorists about to establish Sharia Law in the Sooner State.

Probably most Americans have heard at least some mention of Sharia Law, a system of theocratic governance and laws in several predominantly-Muslim countries in the Middle East. Sharia Law is based on the Qu’ran, traditional commentaries on the Qu’ran, and open-korantraditions from Islamic culture over time. There is no single Sharia Law, and variations exist from country to country. Topics covered include religion, family, food, finances, crime and punishment, war and peace among others.

Some of the rules may seem harsh by contemporary Western standards. Pre-marital sex (Zina) may warrant 100 lashes. A thief may have his or her hand cut off. And a Muslim who leaves Islam for some other religion may face execution. Little wonder that the good folks of Oklahoma wanted no part of it. When it was placed on the ballot in 2010, the anti-Sharia-Law Constitutional Amendment was approved by 70% of the voters. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) both sued to have the measure revoked, and in 2012, the Circuit Court of Appeals did just that, saying it violated the U. S. Constitution.

While the courts struck down the Oklahoma Anti-Sharia-Law libertyAmendment, that did not prevent Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Tennessee from following suit. In their defense it must be said that none of those states has been forced to submit to Sharia Law. Dodged the bullet on that one.

But why did this come about in the first place? The Ban Sharia Law website states the case this way, with a petition to be signed:

This petition is meant to create national awareness of  the “Creeping Sharia” threat to America, and to show all of our federal and state legislators that “We The People”, want the Constitution upheld and our American laws protected!

The “Creeping Sharia” threat is further detailed in three stages.

Islam is a totalitarian political system, usually introduced into western countries through three phases. The first phase introduces Islam as “tolerant” and peaceful, intentionally deceiving westerners, using“taqqiya,” Qur’an- sanctioned deceit.

The second phase uses “lawfare” to destroy a country from within using its own laws. And, by the time the third phase is implemented “no-go zones” and violence . . .

Much of the hysteria over creeping Sharia Law in America can be traced to an astounding National Report account of one example of Sharia Law becoming the law of the land in the USA.

In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law.  The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.


Was the Problem Real?

The above National Report story has fueled hysteria across the country. Several political office seekers have used it to support an anti-Muslim agenda. In branding the story False, the Snopes fact-checking service quotes the National Report’s own disclaimer page: “National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.” In other words, the story was intended as a joke, though there was obviously a pool of belief waiting for it.

On the same webpage as the Dearborn story was another in which Bristol clockPalin revealed that her mother never taught her to tell time. “I know it’s something about the big hand and the little hand. That’s as far as we got.” Another story proclaims, “ISIS Leaders Praise Kim Davis – First Female to Win ISIS Courage Award.”

Except in the worlds of satire or anti-Muslim fantasy, there seems to be no imminent threat of Sharia Law being established in the USA. It is estimated that one percent of the U. S. population is Muslim, making a forceful overthrow of the U. S. A. unlikely. The several Anti-Sharia-Law state constitutional amendments are another example of solutions without problems.


Negative Consequences

The primary consequence of these anti-Sharia measures is the stirring up koranof anti-Muslim hysteria among low-information citizens. Americans have long suffered from a takeover mentality. Only the culprits supposedly taking over has varied: Jews, Irish, Italians, Catholics, atheists, African-Americans, Mexicans, and others.

During the 2016 presidential campaigns, Donald Trump had no trouble heating up the pre-existing bigotry toward Muslims: saying he would refuse entry of any Muslims to the United States and even taking actions against those already living in America, including native born citizens. The threat to take actions against American Muslims, quite aside from moral and legal aspects, would need to confront the fact that Americans are never asked to record their religion when registering to vote, get a driver’s license, enroll in school, etc. However, logic was no match for hatred.

Once again, we find citizens and their governments moved to install “solutions” for which there is no problem. But the phony solution causes problems of its own.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

http://bansharialaw.com  – accessed November 3, 2015

“City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law” — http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/ — Accessed November 3, 2015

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sharia.asp — accessed November 3, 2015

National Report, “Bristol Palin Slams Obama Over Support of ‘Clock Kid’, Admits She Never Learned How To Tell Time”  — http://nationalreport.net/bristol-palin-slams-obama-support-clock-kid-never-learned-tell-time/  — accessed November d3, 2015

http://nationalreport.net/isis-leaders-praise-kim-davis-first-female-win-isis-courage-award/ — accessed November 3, 2015.

Group Punishment

Let me know what you think 

cropped-Earl-Photo.jpg

From time to time, I will present some thoughts on Solutions without Problems (soluprobs) as a general phenomenon. For example, they often take the form of “Group Punishment.”

When I have said elsewhere that a problem doesn’t exist, that is sometimes a slight exaggeration. For example, Voter ID laws are designed to prevent in-person election fraud: pretending to be someone else, someone who is eleigible to vote. All the studies of this problem conclude that it is extremely rare, but it does happen in a few cases.

Similarly, a Michigan legislator proposed forcing foster chlldren to purchase clothes from thrift shops as a way of preventing foster parents from spending the children’s clothing allowance on booze. (I was never clear on the logic of that.) He never offered evidence as to how much clothing allowance was being boozed away or whether the problem really existed at all. But let’s be momentarily cyncial and assume it happens sometimes.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume there were NO witches in Colonial Salem, but I think it’s fair to say that many of the other examples discussed on this website are solutions to problems that are RARE but may occur sometimes.

I would suggest there are two reasonable responses to problems that almost never happen.

Option One: ignore them. Life isn’t perfect. No matter how hard we try to prevent problems, a few slip through the cracks–and we survive.

Option Two: track down the specific instances of the rare problem and sanction them. If somebody tries to vote using someone else’s name, arrest them, try them, and put them in prison. If you discover foster parents spending the clothing allowance on booze, arrest them, try them, and put them in prison–at the very least, don’t let them be foster parents.

Make sense? Of course. More commonly, however, when we sense that a problem exists, we establish a “solution” that applies to everyone, the few wrongdoers and the great majority of straight arrows. Everyone has to get a Voter ID card, the vast majority of whom are eligible voters who have never cheated at the polls. What’s the likely impact of this group punishment?

Those who were doing nothing wrong are suddenly burdened with sanctions they don’t deserve. All those foster parents who spent the kids’ clothing allowance on, well, clothing for the kids now face limits on how to do their jobs. They probably have to fill out forms and jump through other hoops. Moreover, they will know that those in government assume they are misusing the funds, when they have been doing nothing but good.

How about those few wrong-doers? Do you think there’s any chance they’ll figure out a way to get around the new rules? Maybe they’ll forge receipts, find thrift store employees who’ll look the other way, etc. Officials who are busy applying the rules to all the innocent foster parents will probably miss the few bad apples.

All this can be avoided easily. Before taking action, measure the problem. See if it’s big enough to deserve a one-size-fits-all solution. If it’s not all that big a problem, ignore it or deal with the few cases that do exist. Don’t punish all the people who are playing by the rules.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy