Iowa Democrats have introduced a bill in the Iowa Legislature to legalize the sale and possession of marijuana for recreational purposes. The Republican majority says they are not interested in doing this.
Republicans used to be the party of individual liberty. Today, they seem to be the party of religious morality enforcement, wanting to control the peaceful, voluntary activities of adults.
No one is opposed to reasonable regulations to protect the public, such as prohibiting driving while intoxicated and licensing sellers in order to prevent sales to minors and to prevent the sale of adulterated products.
As we saw in the case of alcohol in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition creates violence and corruption. The same is true in the case of drug prohibition today. To the extent that the possession and sale of drugs are decriminalized, related violence and corruption will be reduced. Yes, just as with alcohol, some people will be negatively affected by abuse and addiction. But the vast majority of people will be responsible, and their peaceful, voluntary activities should not be criminalized.
It is time for Republicans to help create responsible legislation to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana in Iowa.
Iowa Senate File 167 would expand the ability to work for young Iowans between the ages of 14 and 18. Part of the bill pertains to school work-study programs. One provision reads:
“A business that accepts a secondary student in a work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil liability for any claim for bodily injury to the student or sickness or death by accident of the student arising from the business’s negligent act or omission during the student’s participation in the work-based learning program at the business or worksite.”
I don’t see any good reason to grant this immunity to businesses for their own negligence. Of course, businesses would like this immunity, but what they would like does not make it the right thing to do. This provision should be taken out of the bill.
Here is a letter to the editor that I just sent to The Des Moines Register – in response to both an editorial and a letter that were recently published on the subject:
Both sides of the “Right To Work” laws are wrong. The right answer is that the government should get out of the business of regulating employment relationships between private employers and employees. Neither employees nor employers should be forced by our government to do something against their will. And both employers and workers should be prohibited from using force against the other.
That means private employers should be free to negotiate or not negotiate with a union and workers should be free to strike or call for boycotts against any employer. If they want, private employers should be free to require that all of their employees join the union. Employees should be free to accept an employer’s terms of employment, negotiate better terms, or look elsewhere for work. In all cases, no one, including the government, should be able to use force against anyone else.
In the case of government employment, the government should not be forced by law to negotiate with a union and employees should not be forced by law to join a union.
Here is a letter to the editor of The Des Moines Register that they published today, 7/14/2022:
It appears clear that most of the recent opioid deaths are the result of people buying drugs on the street and not knowing either the strength or even the actual drug that is in what they think they are buying. If we really want to end opioid deaths, we need to end drug prohibition and make drugs of known strength and purity available through legal channels.
It should still be a crime to drive a vehicle while intoxicated or to sell drugs to children. But it should not be a crime for people to put drugs into their own bodies. People who are addicted should be treated under a medical model, not a criminal model.
The Des Moines Register recently published an essay by retired pharmacist and former state senator, Tom Greene, in which he supported proposed legislation that would prohibit insurance companies from switching patients to lower cost drugs or increasing co-pays if the patient is stable on a currently prescribed medication. (“Protect health and end non-medical switching” 2/14/2022) (Link below.)
So, if the newest highest-cost drug works for a patient, this bill would make it illegal to try to change that patient to a less costly drug. If that’s true, then maybe the law should also require that the lowest-cost drug in the same therapeutic class be tried first.
If people had to pay their own way for prescription drugs, many would try lower-cost drugs even if a higher-cost drug was working effectively for them. It seems fair to allow insurance companies to try to save money. It also seems fair to require higher co-pays if a higher-cost drug is chosen. If the proposed bill is passed into law, it will certainly help to push prescription drug insurance premiums higher and higher.
It has been widely reported that more than 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses during the 12 months ended April 30, 2021, a record high. A large and increasing portion of overdose deaths is attributable to illicitly obtained drugs, especially fentanyl. Many addicts have no choice but to buy their drugs on the black market, so they can’t be assured of the strength or purity of the drug, or what other drugs might have been added to what they think they are buying. As a result, many overdose deaths are accidental.
Imagine if we treated drug addiction using a medical model rather than a criminal model? If addictive drugs could be purchased legally and were regulated as to strength and purity, many overdose deaths would be avoided. Additionally, people who become addicted might be more likely to ask for help to kick the habit if they weren’t afraid of getting arrested and put in jail. Finally, much of the crime and violence associated with the illegal drug trade would go away if our policy of prohibition were ended.
As I’ve written before, if a new pharmacy opens in your neighborhood, the existing pharmacies don’t start a shooting war to protect their turf. And if someone breaks into or otherwise trys to rob a pharmacy, the pharmacy calls the police. It is the prohibition that causes most of the violence.
Under a legal drug regime, it would still be illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, and children would be prohibited from buying drugs. But a person who minds their own business would not be a criminal for using drugs in a peaceful manner.
The striking workers at John Deere just rejected the second contract proposal offered by the company. The workers need to be careful to not put John Deere in the position of being not competitive in world markets.
About 40% of John Deere’s revenues come from outside the U.S. If the company is not competitive internationally it will see a dramatic decline in revenues, profits… and jobs. Many people today push us to “buy American”. That sounds good and patriotic, but if other countries do the same we will all be poorer.
International free trade, just like free trade among the states in the U.S., has two sides: In the long run, it makes everyone better off, but in the short run disrupts the lives of many. The best policy is to have a safety net that helps those who lose their jobs transition to new jobs, while allowing free trade to help improve the income and wealth of people around the world.
In his recent essay in The Des Moines Register, Jonathan Wilson wrote regarding the Earth’s population, “The current rate of population increase is simply not sustainable.” That statement is literally true. The rate of the world’s population increase has been slowing for decades. According to a forecast by the United Nations, which is more pessimistic than other forecasts, the world population is expected to peak at about 11 billion people near the end of this century and then begin to decline.
A clear pattern has been established. As countries around the world have become more affluent, their population growth rates have slowed. As people gain more income and wealth they have better access to birth control and respond to the various costs associated with having more children by having fewer of them. So, maybe the best thing we can do to further slow the rate of population increases is to help people in poorer countries to improve their economic situation. We might best do that by reducing barriers to free trade. Good jobs in poor countries will also result in fewer people wanting to illegally immigrate to other richer countries like the U.S.
Jessica Hyland is correct that if our government starts regulating drug prices, then the development of new drugs will slow down. (Below is the link to her essay in the Des Moines Register.) Our current government policies have given us more new drugs at higher prices than we are willing to pay for. So maybe getting new drugs more slowly would be a good trade-off for significantly lower drug prices.
Good health might be the most important thing in our lives, but it is not the only thing. The pandemic proved that many people are willing to risk their health in order to do those other things they consider to be important in their lives.
Today, drugs approved by the FDA are required to be covered by Medicare regardless of the price, and whether or not the drug is any better than cheaper existing drugs! Government granted patents prohibit competition by generic drug makers for 20 years or more! There is clearly no free market for prescription drugs. As a libertarian, I would love to see our government get out of the healthcare business altogether, but we don’t live in that world. Our government has had its thumb on the scales in favor of drug companies for decades, so it is not unreasonable for it to now start regulating drug prices.
I read the report in The Des Moines Register about the questioning of Tom Vilsack by Joni Ernst during the Senate hearings on Vilsack’s nomination for Secretary of Agriculture. (Vilsack nomination moves to full Senate” 2/3/2021) President Biden has ordered the development of a plan to convert all federal, state, local and tribal vehicles, including Post Office vehicles, to “clean and zero-emission vehicles.” Ernst asked Vilsack if he will direct the USDA to buy Tesla trucks that run on electricity or Ford vehicles that run on 85% ethanol. Vilsack, like a good politician, said it’s not ” an either-or circumstance.” It will be interesting to see how Vilsack balances the interests of farmers and biofuels producers with the interests of the zero-emissions vehicle and power producers. One thing is for sure: lobbyists will be in high demand.