Saturday, April 28, 2012

“Our drug dilemma,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 27 – May 3, 2012, 15.

LEGALIZING DRUGS

It’s easy to understand why former vice-president Dick Cheney claims that president Obama has been an “unmitigated disaster.” But it’s becoming clear that even his progressive supporters are becoming disenchanted with him.

In the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia regional presidents discussed the effects of drug traffic to the US and the failed policies of fighting this losing battle, suggesting the decriminalization of at least marijuana.

Obama flatly ruled out legalizing drugs as a way to combat the illegal trafficking that has ravaged the region. This is the same president who we thought was forward-looking, using digital technologies and the Internet not only to raise funds for his own campaign.

At some point, as Tapscott and Williams report in their MacroWikinomics (2010), his administration created the Citizen’s Briefing Book to field ideas from the public that could inform his policy platform.

What astonished everyone was the fact that when citizens could voice their opinions, and suggest topics for policy change, the highest-ranking idea was to legalize marijuana, an idea nearly twice as popular as repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy!  And this while we were engaged in two wars and struggling through the Great Recession.
What did Obama do? He roundly ignored popular demand to reconsider federal classification of marijuana, so that its decriminalization or outright legalization will not be taken seriously.

When in doubt, ignore the public. Attorney General Holder agreed to limit federal prosecution, and confused states passed their own legislation regarding the medical use of marijuana.
If there was ever an economic common ground between the right and left, between conservatives who want as little as possible government regulations and progressives who want government sanction of social conventions, the case of pot legalization is ripe for harvesting.

If there was ever was a legislative common ground between the old and young, those who need pot for medical use or recreationally as a reminder of the sixties and those who feel the urge to rebel and be cool, the case of legalizing pot should be it.
How many prisoners are incarcerated because of marijuana use? How much does it cost us to deal with these non-violent crimes? Is it turning our inner-cities into safer places?

What if pot were treated like alcohol? What if it were regulated and taxed? Would Latin American drug cartels disappear? Even if not completely, would their business diminish? Could we then divert resources to more productive domestic ends?
All of these questions have been asked for years, but when politicians, like Obama, answer them they shift gears from simple economic analyses to social and moral ones. Why not deal with the economic dimension first, and then worry about social effects?

The hypocrisy of conservative legislators is amazing: inserting government regulation where none should be, making social and moral issues legal ones. Let every family struggle with educating its members on the preference of exercising over smoking, reading over television watching, board-games over Tweeting.
When more Americans support rather than oppose the legalization of marijuana, according to a recent Rassmusen national poll, why does Obama ignore them?

Some estimate that enough taxes will be collected from the sale of marijuana to substantially close the federal deficit. Would you rather increase taxes on all to lower the national deficit rather than impose taxes on marijuana users?
Just as Prohibition failed despite a Constitutional amendment, so the war on drugs has failed. For those arguing about the problems associated with the use of pot, fearing lawlessness and crime, it should be noted that a stoner has the munchies and not much energy to rob.

A couple of months ago, The New York Times reported that the amount of tax collection at the city and state level is becoming more significant in tough economic times. It cited Colorado Springs collecting more than $700,000 in taxes from the medical marijuana industry in 2011. Denver collected $3.4 million last year from sales tax and application and licensing fees, while the state as a whole collected more than $5 million.
Putting all of this in perspective will take time. The Obama administration is giving states mixed messages about its intentions, leaving open the possibility that a crack-down is imminent. Perhaps a strong statement from our local leaders can set the tone of the debate.

Regardless of how much common sense we can expect from Washington, we can be progressive and conservative at once and completely decriminalize marijuana. For those who still worry about its effects, the city is installing cameras downtown: Big Brother will be watching!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who encourages free love and responsible intoxication. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

Sunday, April 22, 2012

“Money and faith,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 20 - 26, 2012, 17.

MONEY AND FAITH

We have heard about Tim Tebow and the merging of faith and sports: is he going too far? Did Jesus really help him win games for the Broncos? What will happen now in New York?
We have heard about the religious views politicians and the merging of faith and politics: should we care if Romney is a Mormon? Should we worry about a Catholic President being beholden to the Pope rather than the Constitution?

But we are not hearing much about faith and business: isn’t the marketplace secular? Do you care if your partner is Mormon or Catholic? What if she’s a Muslim or Jewish?
Morality provides the foundation for the marketplace, from small exchanges to major contracts. When you buy a 500-page packet at OfficeMax, you assume that indeed there are 500 pages inside. Would you waste your time counting them?

Why wouldn’t the company put only 490 pages in each packet and increase its profits by 2%? There is basic trust associated with these kinds of transactions, a moral code we all abide by: the golden rule.
When we follow it, do onto others as you would have them do onto you, we save ourselves the trouble of counting 500 pages. Trust and integrity also mean honesty, consideration, accountability, and transparency, values you find in mission statements that large corporation post on their websites. Moral conduct also equates to efficiency.

But is this trust shared across religious beliefs? Are Mormons as trustworthy as Muslims? What about the Jews who have been maligned for centuries? Is one’s religion a moral indicator of one’s business behavior? Does religion teach these values?
The German sociologist Max Weber had the following observation regarding American salesmanship. He suggested coming to a new town on Saturday, going to church with the locals on Sunday, and then making sales-calls on Monday. Gain their trust through religion before attempting to sell anything.

This advice is still followed in some mega-churches where congregants are encouraged to do business with each other, and frequent each other’s places of business. Is there a necessary connection between worship and moral conduct?
Some argue that because God sees all, even if you get away being immoral in this life, you’ll be punished in the afterlife. For many this idea of heaven and hell keeps them within moral boundaries in the here and now.

What if your faith doesn’t include the idea of an afterlife? Does that mean you necessarily don’t care about morality? Plenty secular businesspeople are moral while being nonbelievers. The marketplace is irreligious. But aren’t our worldly activities an expression of our inner core of beliefs? Isn’t there a direct line between one’s honesty and integrity and one’s conduct in the marketplace?
It’s odd, then, that we demand to know a candidate’s detailed belief system and relation to God—“born again” comes up as a significant statement of faith—when we are willing to ignore it in the marketplace. Do you demand prayer before signing a contract? Do you expect God’s blessing to succeed in business?

What’s going on in the marketplace, as Adam Smith already reminded us centuries ago, is a tacit commitment to moral behavior: we assume everyone is honest, until proven otherwise; it’s a more efficient system than suspecting everyone (and counting 500 sheets of paper).
So, are we moral in the name of efficiency? Is efficiency as powerful as the watchful eye of the Impartial Spectator to keep you honest in the marketplace? Perhaps it’s also common sense: you are bound to encounter the same people over and over again; they’ll remember if you cheated them in the past.

So, efficiency plus memory equals moral behavior in the marketplace. Add to it cost and convenience—do you want to do a background check on everyone?—and you are getting closer to the recipe for marketplace morality. Is religion then necessary?
If by religion we mean moral sentiments, then religion in general and religious mandates and institutions in particular are helpful. But when religion divides, it may interfere in the marketplace.

I recall growing up in Israel when our family business had close to half of its clients Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. The Intifada was a financial nuisance, not a political matter. Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, all they wanted was to make a living and support their families—hostilities ruin the marketplace, they all admitted.
We all count on the marketplace to even the odds—when it isn’t manipulated by Wall Street—among moral businesspeople who are trying to prosper under conditions of personal liberty and equal opportunity.

One’s faith is a private matter we can neither buy nor sell. Let’s keep it then out of the marketplace!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com