« Insider trading and knowledge | Main | My abortion doubts »

May 11, 2008



To a certain extent, policy is dictated by " what can you get away with" and then a pressure group wants something - so you give in to them. This is roughly what was happened over cannabis


Winston Churchill comes to mind:
"It is a fine thing to have good intentions, but it is also very important to be right."

Larry Teabag

[Being “tough on drugs” symbolizes the sort of people we are: clean, self-disciplined, sober] hypocritical, moronic, bossy ostridges.

I'm not sure 1 works. If the electorate voted in a fascist party, "democracy" wouldn't be a reason to support fascism.

As for 4,

[it can only tell us the costs of the choice]

but this is vital information isn't it? Particularly in the case of the war on drugs where the choice is (a) a policy which is preferable by any practical measure, versus (b) amazingly expensive and illiberal posturing.


This seems to be Hillary Clinton's rationale for her Gas Tax holiday. No economist can be found to support it, which is being spun as a good thing. All those elites are out of touch, you see...


But is this because the policy is useless? Or is it because there have been so few attempted attacks anyway?

Plus a certain amount of internment is factored in.


Who provides the evidence?

'Experts' reserve the right to change their mind and historically they do. Depending on where you place your money, so you can get an argument for any particular viewpoint you wish.

Isn't that how governments use experts in any case?

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad