Exeunt Omnes Redux

One thing which my New Visions instructor has always pushed me to do is to question all of my beliefs about United States everything: foreign policy, economics, federal government, state government, local government, etc. etc. And while I can't say my point of view has changed in any sort of dramatic manner I do feel as if I am more sure of my beliefs. That's not to say I've become entrenched in my beliefs, and am resistant to change, just that I have a better grasp on my beliefs now. Overall I'd say that while I'm not completely satisfied with the way the US runs things, I'm not totally ready to give up on it.

If you were to ask the average US Citizen they would say that the United States was formed based on the idea of freedom. At first this meant freedom from taxation without representation in parliament. After that the idea of freedom in America took on a life of it's own. People wanted Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, etc. But, how have we as a modern American society managed to stand up to our ancestor's vision of America? The answer is complicated. In terms of Freedom of the Press America is tied for 9th behind 20 other countries (1). However, in terms of Freedom of Religion we are doing much better. We are ranked 4th in terms of government restrictions on religion(2). In terms of social hostilities based on religion we are ranked 4th as well. The areas which I find most interesting, however, are not the traditional freedoms of which we think. I'm more interested in freedoms of choice. How free are we to choose for yourself what we like to do. Personally, I feel that as long as one is not directly bringing harm to others. The government should stay out of one's personal affairs. For example, if a man chooses to shoot up heroin I do not feel as if the government has the right to dictate to that man what he can do in his own time. This is obviously an extreme case, but one which I do feel strongly about. This man has harmed no one other than himself with his vice, and if he handles himself properly will harm no one else. Obviously if one looks only at drugs the US is not best in terms of freedom, however things are changing. Medical pot is becoming more and more socially accepted (3), however, this is a topic for another blog. My main point is that in terms of freedom of choice America isn't bad. We may not be able to walk down the street naked or snort cocaine in public, but we also don't have any state mandated beliefs, women are free to lead the lives they wish to live, and we are allowed to choose which form of artistic expression we absorb. The choices we are free to make far outshine the choices we are not allowed to make, and the choice which aren't currently legally allowed are being fought for by others.

When it comes to voting I'm a talking contradiction. I believe that everybody should vote but have no plans to vote in the immediate future (the reason I choose not to is personal and I do not wish to go into detail on it here)

. Not only that, I believe that every citizen in a democratic society should be obligated to vote even though this flies in the face of my beliefs on freedom of choice. First let's examine mandatory voting. Currently there are 32 countries which have a mandatory vote, of which 19 actively enforce the mandate (4). Egypt for example has a law requiring all men to vote, but does not actively enforce the law. In a pure democratic society the government is merely an extension of the public conscious. If the majority of the public wishes for speed limits to be eliminated then this is what the government does. Obviously, at the moment this kind of response, and understanding, is impossible, however, perhaps the way to get closest to this ideal is with compulsory voting. When an average of around 50% (5) of the population turns out to a presidential election how can we be sure that the president is truly reflective of the nations desires. The pros and cons of compulsory voting are well documented (6), and the decision I've come to is that I would prefer compulsory voting with little to no enforcement. In my view this would help increase voter turnout, with a minimal limits on voter freedom. Obviously, this is an untested thesis, but one which I feel has some merit. The only other issue I have with the American electoral system is the American Electoral College. In this day and age the entire concept of the electoral college seems outdated. With the advent of digital, well, everything why we can't digitally tabulate votes to determine presidential elections boggles the mind. I understand people's fears of tampering, but also feel that a technologically advanced society such as ours would be able to come up with effective anti-tampering measures. Voting is an essential part (some would say the essential part) of any democratic society. As of 2008 The United States is the 18th most Democratic Country in the world (7) with the electoral process, political participation and civil liberties being three of the deciding factors. Clearly there's room for improvement.

Foreign policy is clearly one of the most controversial topics in America; especially during the Bush years, and during the 2008 election. This would probably be my least favorite aspect of the US Government. It's not totally that the US interferes at all on a global scale, but also the fights which the US chooses. For example, not only have reports shown that Saddam Hussein had given up on WMD creation in the mid 1990's (8)(documents found after the war that is), but it's also true that no clear link has ever been found between Saddam Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks (9). I just believe that America can choose it's battles better. I've detailed in an earlier blog the atrocities being committed in Darfur, but one must not forget the resources used in Iraq which could have been used in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. There's also the issue of American soldiers stationed in foreign countries. In 2004 there were 116,400 units stationed in Europe (10). I can't say I know the specifics of these arrangements, but I would like to see studies examining how necessary these arrangements are. Shouldn't our goal as a country be to get as many of these men and women home to their families?

Thomas Jefferson wished for an agrarian society. That is, a society in which the economy was based on farming and the federal government had little to no involvement in the matters of the individual. Obviously, an agrarian society is one which is just not possible at this point. Technology has advanced too far for an agrarian society to exist. However, the idea of a minimalist federal government (on an individual level) is still a possibility. This idea is an extension of the idea introduced in the first paragraph; the idea that we limit the federal government's power to dictate our actions. However, I also believe in the federal government's power to more strictly regulate the economy. I believe in higher taxes on the rich, stricter regulations on banks, and corporations, and even a bit of redistribution of wealth. For too long, I feel, the government has allowed the corporations in America to run amok. Just this past year, for example, GE managed to not pay any taxes to the US government (11). In fact they profited during tax season. This is bad for everyone. GE generated 10 billion dollars worth of income last year, and the taxes on this could have helped to fund floundering US businesses. From another study:

"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue."

Clearly, there are loopholes in the system which need to be closed. Higher taxes on the rich and (to a lesser degree) redistribution of wealth have been covered in previous blogs of mine.

America is not a perfect country. In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect country. When I look at America I see it's faults, and how I think these faults could potentially be changed; in this way I show my patriotism for America. I believe patriotism is the act of recognizing a country's faults, and then attempting to improve them. This is not to say that I wish for America to be No. 1 at everything, or even No. 1 at anything. It's more that I see room for improvement and if I can I would like to help America on it's way towards improvement. All of this has not stopped me from wondering about life outside of America. Canada seems nice; Scotland seems beautiful and is the land of some of my ancestors; Denmark is the happiest country on Earth; the English have awesome accents. All of this is true, but for now America is where I will be for the foreseeable future.

Exeunt Omnes

One thing which my New Visions instructor has always pushed me to do is to question all of my beliefs about United States everything: foreign policy, economics, federal government, state government, local government, etc. etc. And while I can't say my point of view has changed in any sort of dramatic manner I do feel as if I am more sure of my beliefs. That's not to say I've become entrenched in my beliefs, and am resistant to change, just that I have a better grasp on my beliefs now. Overall I'd say that while I'm not completely satisfied with the way the US runs things, I'm not totally ready to give up on it.

If you were to ask the average US Citizen they would say that the United States was formed based on the idea of freedom. At first this meant freedom from taxation without representation in parliament. After that the idea of freedom in America took on a life of it's own. People wanted Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, etc. But, how have we as a modern American society managed to stand up to our ancestor's vision of America? The answer is complicated. In terms of Freedom of the Press America is tied for 9th behind 20 other countries (1). However, in terms of Freedom of Religion we are doing much better. We are ranked 4th in terms of government restrictions on religion(2). In terms of social hostilities based on religion we are ranked 4th as well. The areas which I find most interesting, however, are not the traditional freedoms of which we think. I'm more interested in freedoms of choice. How free are we to choose for yourself what we like to do. Personally, I feel that as long as one is not directly bringing harm to others. The government should stay out of one's personal affairs. For example, if a man chooses to shoot up heroin I do not feel as if the government has the right to dictate to that man what he can do in his own time. This is obviously an extreme case, but one which I do feel strongly about. This man has harmed no one other than himself with his vice, and if he handles himself properly will harm no one else. Obviously if one looks only at drugs the US is not best in terms of freedom, however things are changing. Medical pot is becoming more and more socially accepted (3), however, this is a topic for another blog. My main point is that in terms of freedom of choice America isn't bad. We may not be able to walk down the street naked or snort cocaine in public, but we also don't have any state mandated beliefs, women are free to lead the lives they wish to live, and we are allowed to choose which form of artistic expression we absorb. The choices we are free to make far outshine the choices we are not allowed to make, and the choice which aren't currently legally allowed are being fought for by others.

When it comes to voting I'm a hypocrite. I believe that everybody should vote but have no plans to vote in the immediate future. Not only that I believe that every citizen in a democratic society should be obligated to vote even though this flies in the face of my beliefs on freedom of choice. First let's examine mandatory voting. Currently there are 32 countries which have a mandatory vote, of which 19 actively enforce the mandate (4). Egypt for example has a law requiring all men to vote, but does not actively enforce the law. In a pure democratic society the government is merely an extension of the public conscious. If the majority of the public wishes for speed limits to be eliminated then this is what the government does. Obviously, at the moment this kind of response, and understanding, is impossible, however, perhaps the way to get closest to this ideal is with compulsory voting. When an average of around 50% (5) of the population turns out to a presidential election how can we be sure that the president is truly reflective of the nations desires. The pros and cons of compulsory voting are well documented (6), and the decision I've come to is that I would prefer compulsory voting with little to no enforcement. In my view this would help increase voter turnout, with a minimal limits on voter freedom. Obviously, this is an untested thesis, but one which I feel has some merit. The only other issue I have with the American electoral system is the American Electoral College. In this day and age the entire concept of the electoral college seems outdated. With the advent of digital, well, everything why we can't digitally tabulate votes to determine presidential elections boggles the mind. I understand people's fears of tampering, but also feel that a technologically advanced society such as ours would be able to come up with effective anti-tampering measures. Voting is an essential part (some would say the essential part) of any democratic society. As of 2008 The United States is the 18th most Democratic Country in the world (7) with the electoral process, political participation and civil liberties being three of the deciding factors. Clearly there's room for improvement.

Next I'd like to speak briefly of US foreign policy. Not surprisingly, this would probably be my least favorite aspect of the US Government. It's not totally that the US interferes at all on a global scale, but also the fights which the US chooses. Not only have reports shown that Saddam Hussein had given up on WMD creation in the mid 1990's (8)(documents found after the war that is), but it's also true that no clear link has ever been found between Saddam Hussein's regime and the 9/11 attacks (9). I just believe that America can better choose it's battles. I've detailed in an earlier blog the atrocities being committed in Darfur, but one must not forget the resources use in Iraq which could have been used in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. There's also the issue of American soldiers stationed in foreign countries. In 2004 there were 116,400 units stationed in Europe (10). I can't say I understand the specifics of these arrangements, but it seems likely that not all of these arrangements are totally necessary, and shouldn't our goal be to get these men and women home to their families?

Thomas Jefferson wished for an agrarian society. That is, a society in which the economy was based on farming and the federal government had little to no involvement in the matters of the individual. Obviously, an agrarian society is one which is just not possible at this point. Technology has advanced too far for an agrarian society to exist. However, the idea of a minimalist federal government (on an individual level) is still a possibility. This idea is an extension of the idea introduced in the first paragraph; the idea that we limit the federal government's power to dictate our actions. However, I also believe in the federal government's power to more strictly regulate the economy. I believe in higher taxes on the rich, stricter regulations on banks, and corporations, and even a bit of redistribution of wealth. For too long, I feel, the government has allowed the corporations in America to run amok. Just this past year, for example, GE managed to not pay any taxes to the US government (11). In fact they profited during tax season. This is bad for everyone. GE generated 10 billion dollars worth of income last year, and the taxes on this could have helped to fund floundering US businesses. From another study:

"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue."

Clearly, there are loopholes in the system which need to be closed. Higher taxes on the rich and (to a lesser degree) redistribution of wealth have been covered in previous blogs of mine.

America is not a perfect country. In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect country. When I look at America I see it's faults, and how I think these faults could potentially be changed; in this way I show my patriotism for America. I believe patriotism is the act of recognizing a country's faults, and then attempting to improve them. This is not to say that I wish for America to be No. 1 at everything, or even No. 1 at anything. It's more that I see room for improvement and if I can I would like to help America on it's way towards improvement. All of this has not stopped me from wondering about life outside of America. Canada seems nice; Scotland seems beautiful and is the land of some of my ancestors; Denmark is the happiest country on Earth; the English have awesome accents. All of this is true, but for now America is where I will be for the foreseeable future.

Darfur

Almost everybody has heard something about the conflict in Darfur. From local and national news broadcasts, to celebrities, to humanitarian outreach programs messages about the plight of the Sudanese is everywhere. But how much do you actually know about the conflict? Personally, up until now I've never done any research into it. I've always intended to, but just never have for one reason or another. Then, recently in class we had a Chinese RPI student come talk to us, and it got me thinking. I wondered how he felt about the conflict in Darfur. I knew that China was supposed to be supplying the "bad" guys (of whom I really didn't know anything) in Darfur with weapons, and wondered if he knew anything about it. This is what led me to write this blog.

The conflict started in the March of 2003 when Sudanese rebels in Darfur began skirmishing with the Sudanese government. By September more than 65,000 people have fled Darfur for the neighboring country of Chad (fled from Sudan that is). By December 600,000 are estimated to have been displaced. During this time is when the conflict really began took shape. From March to April the rebels managed to win several engagements with the government the most important being a raid on the capital of North Darfur, Al-Fashir. In response to this string of successfull raids the government began employing the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed are a group of Arabic speaking herders which the government organized to help stop the uprising. These Janjaweed forces managed to turn the tide against the rebels and force most non-Arabs to flee the country to Chad. However, the Janjaweed quickly became out of control and began chasing fleeing citizens into Chad creating tensions between the Chadian, and Sudanese governments. In April of 2004 a ceasefire is reached between the rebels and the government. However, factions on both sides continually breach the agreement and enforcement is almost nonexistent. Since this 2004 ceasefire the situation has only gotten worse. Rape is a frighteningly common place occurrence, and refugees number in the millions. (1)(2)(3)(4)

Why has the situation in Darfur been allowed to deteriorate as far as it has? The answer is not simple. A lot of blame obviously must be placed on the Sudanese government. They have allowed the conflict to continue to the point of insanity. They have refused to recognize the authority of international criminal courts, and have shown no signs of attempting to stop the conflict. Perhaps worst of all, however, they have humanitarian organizations attempting to aid Sudanese refugees (5). The president himself, Omar al-Bashir, claims that the claims have been exaggerated and puts the death toll at around 10,000 while the UN puts it at around 300,000 deaths (6). The response from countries around the world has been completely impotent as well however. In 2008 an arrest warrant was issued by The International Criminal Court for Omar al-Bashir, yet no arrest has been made (7). Some feel that this is because an arrest could further destabilize the country, but other than these chargers there haven't been any real response from any international organization. On a national level the response has also been lacking. Other than deeming the situation genocide (which the UN has not done), and sending aid to the country the US hasn't really done anything (more on that later). Other countries like Great Britain have also sent aid, but no country seems to actually be going into Darfur to attempt to stop the conflict. In fact, estimates on how much vary, but it is generally accepted that China and Russia are, or at least have been, supplying the Sudanese military with arms (8).

So what does this all mean for America? Many feel that it's not the US's responsibility to intervene in Darfur. They say, "We are not the international police. Isn't that what the UN is for?" And I tend to agree, I feel that the UN is supposed to be an international peacekeeping organization, but they never seem to be able to act in any active manner. At this point in time it would be hard for the US to contribute to any kind of real peacekeeping operation in Darfur. We already have troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the backlash the US would receive if it were to be the only country to invade (for lack of a better term) Sudan. I feel that as an international community we must declare our belief that mass murder and rape are crimes against humanity in a real way not just with words. I also understand that UN rules and regulations being what they are that this would be an incredibly difficult thing to get going (correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the country have to allow the UN to enter?), but as long we stand by and allow the atrocities being committed to be, well, committed then something just won't sit right in my stomach.

Overpop

What is the greatest environmental threat facing the world today? Global warming? Deforestation? According to some experts, the greatest threat is in fact overpopulation (1). In Pakistan, for example, half the population of America is stuffed into approximately 1/12 (actually 2/25) the space. This would be equivalent to the population of the 10 most populous states squeezing into an area slightly larger than Texas. Overpopulation is also related to the other major problems facing the world. We have more people producing carbon dioxide, more people consuming the world's natural resources, more people, etc. etc. The problem of overpopulation also leads to questions of sustainability. Just how long can Earth support the human race at our current consumption and growth rate?

The ideas of overpopulation, sustainability, and overconsumption have been studied for a couple hundred years. It is thought that the studies first began in the early 1800's when Thomas Malthus posited that humans were growing at a geometric rate (ie exponential), while their food supply was only growing at an arithmetic rate (ie linearly) (2). His claims were eventually found to be false, however they have had long reaching consequences in terms of scientific thought.

For example this influence can be seen in several peak theories which have come into prevalence. Namely, peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorous, and peak grain (345). The idea of peak anything is that the production of any good can only increase for a set amount of time before it decreases terminally (that is, the production will never increase after that point). Estimates on when these points will be reached vary (eg some think that oil has peaked already, and some feel it will peak sometime in the future), but these are still very serious issues which must be given deep consideration.

The only ways to combat the problems mentioned above, I believe, are research and education. Research must be done into ways to help alleviate current and future problems. For example, it is well known that there is a great food shortage in Africa. If we were able to say develop a new type of synthetic meat which could easily be created and distributed. Obviously we must always be looking for better and cheaper alternative energy sources. Education is also incredibly important. With the problem of overconsumption we must educate the people about how to get by on fewer resources. For example if the populations of China and India were to consume resources at the rate at which Japan consumes resources they would need an entire planet to sustain themselves (6). Another problem is that in countries which are not as well off economically the birth rate is generally much higher (7). It is generally accepted that with increased education and literacy rates there comes a decreased fertility rate (8). This comes from both increased female independence, and an increased knowledge of contraceptives. It has been shown that by increasing education women come to believe that they have control over their fertility rates instead of some god or other supernatural force.

Who knows what the future will bring. There may be more problems than solutions. We may not have a chance to save ourselves, but we have to try. There has to be something we can do.

One final, interesting tidbit. While doing research I found this one website (9). While you're there it tells you how many people have been born, how many people have died, how much topsoil has been eroded, and a few other things. In the time it took me to write this 77, 150 people were born, and 7,728 people died of hunger (on average anyway). It's kinda neat.

Income Tax

In the United States tax law is a complex system which includes rules related to, but not limited to, income, gift, payroll, and estate taxes. Legally speaking, the current income tax came into being in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified. This Amendment stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to census or enumeration (1)." Since it's inception there have been several attempts to repeal the 16th Amendment, and to abolish the Income Tax (2). Whether or not this is the right course of action is hard to determine, but one thing is certain; this is a complex issue which must be closely examined.

One type of alternative which has been seriously considered is a Consumption Tax. A consumption tax is a tax on items consumed. The United States actually already has a type of consumption tax in the form of a sales tax. Some, however feel that we should abolish all other forms of tax and just have a pure consumption tax. One proposal which was introduced in 1999 (The FairTax proposal) would abolish all federal taxes (income, gift, payroll etc. etc.) in favor of a flat 23% consumption tax (3). This proposal would also abolish the IRS, and instead create two new Bureaus within the Department of the Treasury instead. The FairTax has yet to pass committee however. Proponents of a consumption tax claim that by only taxing items consumed citizens will be encouraged to save money instead of spending it. Some also believe that by taxing only products sold we can tax criminals who would not pay income taxes normally (4). Reports conflict on whether an almost pure consumption tax would help or hinder the economy overall, but it is clear that more research is needed.

Another type of tax plan which has been considered is a flat tax. A flat tax is exactly what it sounds like; a constant tax rate imposed on all members of a society. Two men, Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, wrote a novel expounding the virtue of a flat tax rate (5). The idea was to simplify the US tax code greatly, and to eliminate marginal tax rates. That is to make it so that as one's income grows one's taxes do not. Hall, and Rabushka felt that this encouraged laziness. Flat Taxes have already been instituted in a number of countries mostly in Eastern Europe (6). Seven states within the United States also have a flat tax rate (7). The problem with the idea of a flat tax rate becomes immediately clear; a flat tax is completely blind. A multimillionaire will feel the loss of 15% of their income a lot less than a person making only $60,000 per year.

Personally, I'm not 100% sure where I am on the issue of income tax. On one level, I understand why one would want to eliminate the income tax. I can understand wanting to keep 100% of the money one has earned. I can also understand why one would want our tax system simplified. Our system seems incredibly complex, and a simpler system would most likely help increase compliance with said code. However, while I agree that we should attempt to simplify the tax code I believe that the income tax should be kept in place. As I said the idea of a flat tax seems to blind, but I also think that a consumption tax may decrease the United States economy. And with the economy's current boom and bust cycle this seems doubly irresponsible. Instead I believe in marginal tax rates. I think that those who have higher incomes should pay higher taxes than those who make less. Which of course is the system the US already has in place. Data has shown that the wealthiest 5% of taxpayers accounted for 60% of income tax, while the bottom 50% only contributed 3% (4). Clearly there is interest in overhauling our current tax code out there, and more research is definitely required.

Drugs

One issue which isn't on the forefront of a lot of minds is drug legalization. Not just the legalization of marijuana, or MDMA (ecstasy), but rather the legalization of all drugs. The majority (around 82 percent according to one poll [1]) of Americans oppose the legalization of heroin and cocaine the same way alcohol is legalized. There are a multitude of pros and cons to both sides of the argument, and honestly at this point in time full drug legalization is nothing but a pipe dream for its advocates. However, I would still like to examine both sides of the argument. Whether these arguments are valid is up to the reader to decide.

One argument against drug legalization which holds a lot of weight is health concerns. Few would deny the negative effects which illegal drugs have on the human body. Some argue that if more drugs were to be legalized this would in turn lead to increased hospital admissions, and general health care costs. Others criticize the drug legalization movement from a legal view point. The USDEA claims that "Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs" (2). I once had a debate with a social studies teacher of mine who used the argument that the Constitution says that the job of the government is to protect the citizens as a reason to keep drugs illegal. Some say that if drugs were legal the dealers would not go away and would instead focus on a younger market. Finally, one cannot ignore the moral outrage many people feel about drugs and drug use (3).

The Pro side of the legalization argument has it's own points to make. For one, many cite the funding that many terrorist organization gain from drug sales as a reason to legalize (4). The reason the terrorists are able to profit off this sale is because the drugs are on the black market. Others cite the profit that the United States could theoretically make off the close control and taxation over a drug market. Still others use the argument that if the US were to control the drug market they could help lessen the dangers the drugs pose by closely monitoring what the drugs are cut with, the dosages, etc. Many feel that current US drug laws actually support the growth of large drug cartels. For example, one member of a Columbian drug cartel stated that he actually relied on US drug laws to help increase market price and to weed out smaller dealing operations (5).

I fall totally on the pro side of the argument. I feel that all drugs should be legalized from marijuana to cocaine to heroin. I could cite a myriad of reasons why I came to this decision, but I think to me it's mostly a matter of choice. I feel that it is not the role of the government to regulate its citizens's personal choices. Instead I feel that the government should exist to protect my right to choose not to take it away. Personally I have never abused a drug, nor drunk alcohol (nor do I have any real desire to), but I would fight tooth and nail for any citizen's right to do so. Would I prefer it if other's did not use drugs or alcohol? Sure, but it's not my right to tell them not to. I must say though, that is me coming from an idealized point of view. I understand that we will most likely not end drug prohibition in my lifetime, and that if it does ever happen it won't be for many generations (there are just too many social stigmas surrounding drug abuse). Instead perhaps we could legalize less dangerous drugs like ecstasy or marijuana. Perhaps we could just lessen the penalties for drug possession to help free up our prisons and allow our police officers to focus on more violent crimes. I would be happy with that. At the end of the day however, the end of drug prohibition would be my ultimate goal.

Finally, I think I'd like to end with a quote from a favored author of mine which inspired my interest in this argument "Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error of judgement" - Philip K. Dick (6)