“You may need to talk with your doctor about your prescriptions.”

I recently received a letter from my prescription drug insurance administrator with that sentence in bold above the body. The letter explains that as of 01/01/2014, the plan’s coverage of this particular (name-brand) medication will change. The administrator and doctor together must review the prescription to ensure it falls within the plan’s rules.

There is nothing in the letter specifically mentioning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), although one sentence does mention information that is “FDA-approved”. The FDA is, according to Wikipedia, part of Secretary Sebelius’s DHHS. Nevertheless, the effective date of the new policy is, I am certain, no coincidence.

Fortunately for me–and I am a fortunate person–this medication was for a specific short-term purpose, and I am no longer using it. I empathize with those who may not be so lucky.

Liberty vs. Anarchy, or, You Want to Legalize What?!

Glenn Beck recently asserted on his TV show that there are two branches of Libertarians: one that really advocates anarchy, or as close to it as we can get; one that advocates a return to the small, limited government as established by the Constitution. I'd like to suggest that this second branch really represents what I call Constitutional Republicans, like me.

I'm no Bible thumper, and I don't want to turn people off by making this blog sound preachy, but I believe that to follow the Constitution requires people of this nation to have the kind of firm morality that comes from training and practice of Judeo-Christian religion.

The first branch of Libertarianism often puts forth the argument that they should be able to do what they want at home--such as use marijuana--as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I submit this article for your consideration.

The main point of the article, in case you didn't read it all the way through, is that young people who have used cannabis longer have a much greater tendency to exhibit psychotic symptoms, or even fully develop psychotic disorders. While this study only covered young people, I think it's likely that it's the length of time of use--rather than beginning age--that is to blame for these ill effects.

So what if these young people now cannot complete a higher education, get a good job, support themselves and a family, and help to create wealth? How does that hurt the rest of society? Oh, and by the way, they won't be able to build up a good retirement savings, so they'll be depending on their children--and yours, and mine--to give them a pension.

So much for anarchy.

Drug Deals

John Stossel recently published a blog item positing that a "War on Drugs" inevitably begets a "War on Guns". He concludes that anybody who opposes gun control, to be intellectually consistent, must also oppose the "war on drugs".

I agree, and I do. In my opinion the "war on drugs" is a waste of resources. It has not only raised a furor over the armament of the drug gangs, it's led to avarice and corruption. Somewhere along the line, somebody came up with the bright idea of confiscating assets used during illegal activity. These assets are then generally auctioned to the public, creating revenue for the governments. The more they confiscate, the more revenue they bring in.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for drug legalization. Like the author of a comment on Mr. Stossel's blog, I see where making drug use, sales, and distribution illegal can be useful--even helpful--for society. The question is how aggressive enforcement should be. I have a proposal (surprise, surprise).

Drug crimes should be like seat belt crimes: a secondary infraction. When a person causes an accident, robs someone, or murders someone, and drugs are involved, the drug charges would serve to make the penalties worse.