Shoul Drugs be Legalized?

Drugs are as old as time -- or at least as old as people. People have been fermenting and consuming alcohol for thousands of years. People have been growing and smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Ands people have been growing and brewing coca leaves for thousands of years. What do these things have in common? They are all mind-altering substances -- "drugs" as they are known today.

Consumption of these drugs carries with it many risks, starting with addiction. In addition, the use of many drugs carries with it risks to physical and mental health. Cocaine can cause strokes(ref), sugar can lead to diabetes(ref) and ecstasy can damage the brain's ability to regulate serotonin, and research with primates and rodents suggests that this damage can be long-lasting (ref). In addition, when people are on mind-altering substances, particularly hallucinogens, they may injure themselves due to the mind-altered state. For example, there's the sad case of Kaylee Muthart who gouged out her own eyes while under the influence of meth (ref).

So it's undeniable that people can be harmed by their drug use, and that is an obvious rationale for restrictions. But it raises the question: what is the proper role of government? In the United States, the proper role of government is to protect people from others -- not to protect people from themselves. Our constitutional rights were framed as protections of individuals' freedom from the government; the Bill of Rights is about what the government cannot do to us(ref).

Despite the ideals that the country was founded on, in 1920 the US ratified the 18th Amendment making the sale and purchase of "intoxicating liquors" illegal. Organized criminals saw a huge business opportunity. They knew that people would still want alcohol, even if it's illegal, and they would pay for it.(ref)  Over the 13 years of prohibition* many lives were lost in the wars between mobsters. In addition some alcohol was contaminated by other substances -- usually to cut costs. Government regulation and oversight would have likely prevented a lot of the contamination.

We see similar problems today with other addictive drugs. The aforementioned Kaylee Muthart only started using meth after she smoked marijuana that was tainted with meth. If she had been able to get marijuana legally in a market with some degree of government oversight, she would likely still have her eyes(ref). One of the failures of alcohol-prohibition was that, with production forced underground, there were increased instances of dangerous contamination (ref).

Other advantages of legalization include tax revenue and the savings resulting from reduced need for enforcement.

Not all drugs are equally harmful to their users or, more importantly, society. For example, violence is one of the common side effects of PCP use. By contrast LSD-users are less likely to harm others (ref) and actually has potential medical benefits (ref). There's no reason that questions of legalization require all-or-nothing answers. This is reflected in the situation today. Sugar and caffeine are legal. Alcohol is legal for those above age 21, and cocaine and LSD are illegal. Marijuana occupies a space inbetween; several states have legalized the drug and more are likely to follow, but it remains illegal on a federal level. One of the most common arguments in favor of legalization is that it does not generally cause harm to those who don't use it. Many drugs are generally illegal, but can be used for medical purposes. Simply put, it's possible to have different rules for different drugs.

In conclusion, not all drugs should be legalized. Those that have a high likelihood of causing users to harm others should remain illegal or restricted. But those that just cause harm to the users, whether physical or mental, no matter how little or how much, should be fully legalized.

*Prohibition was ended in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

Violent Games and Violent Acts: No Causal Link

Video games are more popular than ever – especially violent video games. Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and Battlefield are just three examples. But with the rise in their popularity, video games have received more than their share of criticism. They have been blamed for a number of mass murders, including those in Columbine High School (ref) and the Sandy Hook Elementary School (ref), as well as Anders Breivik’s attacks in Norway (ref).

Blaming a new entertainment medium for violence is not new. The Grimm Brothers’ fairytales were extremely violent* and are, in some quarters, being blamed for domestic violence (ref). In 1928, Robert Williams tried to blame the film, London After Midnight, for his committing murder (ref). In the 1950s the US Senate held hearings to determine if comic books caused violence (ref). For video games, it started with Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop in 1983 (ref).

There’s an obvious, intuitive argument to be made that the depictions and acts of violence desensitize youth and make them more prone to reenacting what they have witnessed. But the evidence is inconsistent. (ref).

Many critics cite the fact that a lot of school shooters are gamers and play violent video games (ref). But that ignores the basic fact that video games are commonplace. You may as well blame violence on ice cream consumption. As of 2013, video game sales were increasing annually, and violent crime was declining (ref). According to some sociologists, it is social isolation – not video games – that leads to violence (ref).

That last point would indicate that videogames may reduce violence. We are in an age where children’s opportunities for social play has declined (ref). But with the advent of multi-player online games such as Call of Duty and Overwatch, video games provide a social outlet (ref). And there is a body of research indicating that video game play provides social as well as cognitive, creative, motivational and emotional benefits. (ref)

There is no way to definitively rule out a link between playing violent video games and committing violent acts. But the evidence doesn't point to such a link (ref). In the next decades, the media will shift their attention to some new form of entertainment.

---

*For one example, in the original Cinderella, the stepsisters hacked off pieces of their own feet in order to fit their feet into the glass slipper.

Was the Decision to Bomb Japan Justified?

In July of 1945 the United States was mired in war. Germany had surrendered, but Japan was still a dangerous threat. The military was developing plans to invade. But the invasion was expected to be the most costly operation in the history of the country’s military. Casualty estimates ranged from half a million to a million American troops. (ref) For comparison’s sake, the American Civil War, which spanned from 1861 to 1865 and was costliest war in US history, cost a total of over 600,000 soldiers between both sides.(ref) In addition to American troops, Many more Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been killed. President Truman had fought in World War I and had firsthand knowledge of the horrors of war.

In Japanese culture, honor was everything. People reacted to dishonor by disemboweling themselves.(ref) The air force had developed squadrons of pilots who each had the goal of suicidally flying their airplanes into enemy ships. (ref)Because of the sense of duty and honor that is part of Japanese culture, there was little hope that the inevitable defeat would force a surrender.

But there was an alternative. In July, the government had tested a revolutionary weapon. In New Mexico they had detonated the world’s first atomic bomb – with the explosive force of between 15 and 20 kilotons.(ref) It was hoped that using this new weapon would force the quick surrender that a conventional invasion wouldn’t. In deciding whether to use the atomic bomb, resident Truman had to weigh the human costs of such use against the costs of continuing to fight a conventional war.

The biggest consideration was minimizing deaths – and, most-specifically, American deaths. As noted above, a traditional invasion would have likely cost over half a million American lives as well as many Japanese. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed an estimated 80,000 lives and the bombing of Nagasaki killed an estimated 45,000.(ref) Thus, the bombing actually saved lives in the final tally. What’s more, it saved American lives, which is a primary consideration for the American government.

The long-term effects of environmental impact of atomic weapons were not well understood. This is evidenced by the fact that the earliest tests of such weapons were carried out on American soil. It is widely accepted that American film icon, John Wayne, died of cancer brought about by radiation exposure experienced during the filming of The Conqueror in New Mexico near the sight of many early tests.(ref) To an extent, the military viewed atomic weapons simply as bigger bombs. This is evidenced by the fact that, post-World War II, the American military expected atomic weapons to be part of the normal process of warfare, and conducted exercises that involved soldiers crouching in trenches while a bomb was detonated and then charging toward the center of the blast. The death toll in Hiroshima was lower than the 100,000 killed in one night of conventional firebombing of Tokyo.(ref)

In today’s world, one of the major reasons that use of atomic weapons is generally considered off the table is the risk of a global conflagration that could destroy all of humanity. But that is a consequence of a global arsenal of nearly 15,000 bombs held by nine countries,(ref) some of which are thousands of times as powerful as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.(ref) At a time when the US was the only nation with such weapons, there was no risk of other countries responding in kind.

Given the considerations and the context, it seems that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a reasonable one.

 *

A Moral Dilemma for AI-Controlled Vehicles

Consider this scenario: A man is in a self-driving car. There is a truck in front of him, but the truck’s wheel breaks off. There are three options:

1. Swerve to the left and hit a school bus which is full of children, almost certainly injuring some of the occupants and possibly killing some of them;
2. Swerve to the right where there is a man on the side of the road standing right outside his car, in which case you would most likely kill him; or
3. Go forward, driving into the truck, most likely killing the occupant of the self-driving car.

Which do you choose? What should the car decide? Which should the programmers program the AI to do? It may seem like a purely academic exercise, but cars keep getting new self-driving features such as automatic brakes or self-parking, so we’re much closer to having self-driving cars on the consumer market than many would think. But these types of situations will become rarer and rarer as self-driving vehicles become more and more commonplace.  Additionally, as the AI learns and adapts to new situations through trial and error, accidents will be reduced. That’s not to say there will not be accidents with self-driving cars but it will be a lot rarer than with cars that are manually operated.

There are no good options. Of course, this will depend on applicable laws and legislation. However I am speculating on courses of action in the absence of such legal concerns. The car company has an obligation to keep its passengers safe. The best case for this specific scenario is option 1 -- hitting the school bus and most likely injuring the occupants of said bus but hopefully not killing any of them. The likelihood of not having any deaths is preferred. There are exceptions such as if the man on the right is terminally ill or on the FBI’s most-wanted list. However I don’t think that self-driving cars will be able to identify people until several years after self-driving cars are released on the market. Car companies will most likely hire actuaries to work with the programmers and assess the different levels of risk for different people.

This is just one of the dilemmas that will be faced by self-driving cars, but it illustrates that programmers and the cars themselves will have hard choices to make.

Screening a Lost Film

In a previous post I talked about the cinematic history class that I go to every week. Occasionally one of the students (or the teacher) hosts a screening that has more of a party atmosphere. For example, one of the guys in the class -- Joe -- will soon be hosting a movie night at his home where we will be watching Dario Argento's Opera. The teacher -- Keith -- occasionally hosts something similar. For example, he showed The Rolling Stones' Gimme Shelter.

But the one that I found the most interesting was when Keith hosted Ed Wood's The Young Marrieds. And it wasn't even that I liked the film. It was a rip-roaring embarrassment of a film.

A little bit of backstory...

Ed Wood was known as a director who made horror films that were scary for all the wrong reasons. Many people aren't aware, but the last film he made was a porno, The Young Marrieds. For years there was a softcore version available on DVD, but the hardcore version was lost. In 2004 the hardcore version was found in an abandoned porn theater in Vancouver by porn archaeologist, Demetrios Otis. That was released on DVD, but an uncut version was subsequently found -- I'm not clear on the difference, though I think it's supposed to be better quality. It has yet to be released. That print is owned by a friend of Keith's. The two of them arranged a screening, and invited our film class.

It was the right environment to enjoy such a horror of a film. I should point out that I've got a fascination with lost films and with lost footage from films.For example, the lost thirty minutes of circus performances in Tod Browning's 1932 film, Freaks. To be one of the few people to see the uncut version of Ed Wood's last movie was a memorable experience.

Our Unpopular Populist, Part 2

In my last post I talked about why I love Andrew Jackson. Now I will address some problems that I have with him, and some of the ways he is considered problematic. Even though I am fond of him, I want to make it clear that I am fully aware that he was not perfect.

One of the many things that people dislike him for is the fact that he owned slaves. And while that is problematic in today's world, it was not unusual for the rich elite from the South. Several of our early Presidents and founding fathers were slave owners. I'm not saying that it was good, but you have to judge them for the time.

Another thing people criticize him for is the Trail of Tears, which is popularly described as a genocidally-motivated campaign. Former Secretary of the Navy and Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, explained it better than I can when he wrote this for the Washington Post:

As president, Jackson ordered the removal of Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to lands west of the river. This approach, supported by a string of presidents, including Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, was a disaster, resulting in the Trail of Tears where thousands died. But was its motivation genocidal? Robert Remini, Jackson’s most prominent biographer, wrote that his intent was to end the increasingly bloody Indian Wars and to protect the Indians from certain annihilation at the hands of an ever-expanding frontier population. Indeed, it would be difficult to call someone genocidal when years before, after one bloody fight, he brought an orphaned Native American baby from the battlefield to his home in Tennessee and raised him as his son.

Now I'd like to talk about my biggest problem with him, which is that he expanded the Executive power. I don't feel like it was a problem for what he did, but it was a problem for later presidents. But I won't get into that here. Washington wanted to make sure that there were checks and balances. He knew that it was important to have safety measures put in place so one bad leader can't destroy everything.

The reason that I like Andrew Jackson so much as a character is his complexity. He did a lot of good. He did a lot of bad. But overall I just like him

Our Unpopular Populist

As I said in my last post, I go to a movie class every Thursday night. Everybody
seems to focus on one particular aspect of the films. My aspect is the characters. You can have a crappy film with a crappy story and a crappy budget. But if it has good characters, I don't care.

Any film with Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Charles Lawton or Christopher Plummer... If it has any of those guys I don't care about anything else. The same goes for books and videogames -- as long as they have good characters, I don't care about the pacing of the book or the gameplay in the videogame.

That's why I'm really into history. I love studying the characters of history. I don't care about empires that rose and fell. I just care about the characters.

And that's why, with given everything I've read about history, my favorite character has been Andrew Jackson. Born into extreme poverty, his father dead before he was born, mother and two brothers dead before he was 14. A child soldier in his early teens. Captured, he refused the humiliation of cleaning a British officer's boot. Accounts vary -- he was punished for that refusal either by getting his face cut or his hand sliced to the bone. Eventually, he was worth over $100 million (in today's dollars) -- of course, he married some of that. He shot those who insulted him or his family. He enjoyed violence so much that his last words were expressions of regret that he didn't kill Henry Clay and John Calhoun.

Some men in history had a knack for cheating death. Rasputin was a good example. Andrew Jackson was in several duels. He would challenge an opponent to a duel if he insulted his wife. He would let his opponent shoot first. He would be hit, and then fire back and kill his enemy. He had several bullets stuck in him his whole life. It was rumored that you could hear the bullets rattling around in his chest.

This is just a part of why I find him so compelling.

Movie Class

Back in 2010, I started taking a cinematic history course at Nassau Community College with a guy named Keith teaching the course. He had several courses -- horror, Spaghetti Westerns, comedy. My favorite was the horror class; I took it several times.

Somewhere along the road Keith got the idea to have an invitation-only class at his house, which would be more advanced and in-depth. It started in 2013, and has been the longest-running class I've ever been in.

I remember the first week, Keith showed us Tod Browning's 1932 classic, Freaks. The second week was King Dinosaur. But after that, I don't remember the exact order of the films he showed after that. For the first two years everything was 16-millimeter, but then we changed to DVDs. The class has been more exciting ever since.

Each session lasts a month -- four classes in a session, one class a week, with each session having a different theme. Some I like better than others. It seems like half of the sessions in a given year are set in stone -- meaning there are certain themes we hit each year. There's Hammer month, Giallo month, Poe month. Spaghetti Western month. and Bring Your Own Movie month (in which each student brings his own movie to show and discuss). For other sessions, Keith improvises, picking themes that he may not get back to. This year, for the first time there will be a crimmi month. And when Christopher Lee died we had a tribute month for him.

Some of my favorite films that he's shown have been:

• Island of Lost Souls
• The Most Dangerous Game
• The Flesh and the Fiends
• Don't Torture a Duckling
• Vincent Price's Masque of the Red Death
• The Witchfinder General
• The Mercenary
• Vincent Price's Fall of the House of Usher
• King Kong

Of course, anything from Hammer Films is a favorite, too.

There are also some movies that I simply would never have seen anywhere else, such as The Beast of Budapest.

For this year, I'm looking forward to seeing a month of crimmis, and whatever surprises Keith has in store.

Keratoconus: Getting Diagnosed

Somewhere, early to mid 2017 I went to my optometrist for a regular checkup. He said that it looks like I might have keratoconus.He said he's not 100% sure, but he was pretty confident. He wanted to give it six months to see if it really is.

Then about three months later I noticed my vision was getting worse so I decided to go back for another eye exam and he informed that, yes, I do have keratoconus.

That's when we decided about treatments and doctors. Apparently there is a new procedure call riboflavin-based corneal crosslinking that helps slow down or stop the progression of keratoconus. We decided it's risky because it's a new procedure. It's only about 20 years old, so nobody knows the risk 50 years down the line. But we decided it's better to go with a risk like that than with the near-certainty of eventually going blind.

At first we discussed going to Europe for treatment because this treatment started in Europe. We thought, since it's such a new procedure they probably know it better than anybody. But then we decided that going with the right doctor in the US is going to be just as good. That's when we decided to start going for consultations about crosslinking. We went to five doctors. Going in, we were pretty certain we were getting the procedure, but it's just a question of which doctor. Given that this is an issue with my eyes, I wanted to be extra-certain that it's a doctor I could communicate with and whom I trusted morally, ethically and technically.

Some doctors were better than others. In the end we went with one who was very good who went over and beyond and was very detail-oriented. Plus, she works with a university, so she's always studying the newest treatments for keratoconus. She was the best of doctors we saw.