May 29, 2014|
Garland talks with Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine about the true motives behind the anti-smoking campaign.
Should drug addiction in the city be treated as a health issue or drug issue? More deaths due to overdose in New Orleans than homicide. This hours guest: Dr. Jeffery Rouse - Orleans Parish Coronor
Bernie Sanders said he’s going to push his plan for a single-payer healthcare plan like Europe. He says Obamacare is costing us too much and the GOP can’t get their bill together to correct the problems. This hours guest: Michael Cannon - Director of Health Policy @ Cato Institute
OH CANADA! Could Canada be the next country to legalize recreational marijuana? Canada is proposing legislation that would legalize recreational marijuana by 2018. This hours guest: Chief Larry Kirk - Retired Chief ( Old Monroe Police Department, Missouri & member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Action Partnership)
Is an independent “select committee” necessary in the investigation of Russian hacking & possible collusion with Trump associates? This hours guest: Max Bergmann - Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress Steve Bucci - Director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation
Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)
Welcome back we did show -- awhile back number longer ago with a gentleman by the name objected solemn. And during that show -- of course so do little reading on him and you. Senior editor at something called reason magazine reason dot -- nationally syndicated columnist. And what the -- the remarkable book one saying yeah it's in the rights of drug use. In true. Or your own good. The antismoking. Crusade. -- the tyranny of public they'll go by appreciative that the Olympics would call them back. Are relentless about these books that it -- over the smoking tours that the right or wrong good. And smoking crusade in tyranny of public. -- Anderson it's it's called -- -- Basically. When the government. And in those that are against tobacco industry. Licenses they're threatening to remove any one who deserves to -- longevity for pleasure. Yeah well basically I disagree with the ideas. Smoking in the public health. And certainly health issue in the sense that that raises the risk of getting areas. Potentially fatal diseases. But make -- public health issue. To my mind at least something. That poses threat to there are not that the person who's choosing to smoke. I was argument about it secondhand smoke they couldn't do in the book. -- the basically my position on that it is that the individual property owners should be decide whether smoking allowed as property. On political Bartlett dictators smokers for example. Let the other owners and operators offers condolences forced to expose that they know the rules coming in. But by mark you're talking about self regarding figure something that people choose to do. Because they like it because it provides relief and strapped it has helped me concentrate. Focus relax. Whatever it is that it does them. They value it. And they know it's risque and they know that it is. Potentially shortening their lives. That is -- The question we have a situation like. Uh oh is there a rationale for government action and my argument is that no there isn't because if you -- -- then. Then potentially can intervene in a wide range of activities. That involved it's -- injury or disease. And really. Almost everything we do carry some level risk so as the great white -- they -- to expand public -- To encompass. Anything you choose to do that might raise your risk of disease or injury and -- that might mean those are concerned with is it brought in. Conception of public health. Realizing that he's looking. And good to -- doubled to ever go one brings -- people would jump opens for you immediately yeah but the child in the home with the smoking aren't. Doesn't have the option not to inhaled secondhand smoke. How he handled those types and which. Well I think it really in the situation like that you have to look at the level of risk you're talking about the -- what you would with any try and make of the fact that children. So if that was the case that. You know just looking around is in the house was killing you know one and three of them. And we knew that you could make a strong -- that was a kind of neglect herb use but in fact the evidence I would go into the book. Is much is your match and you're really talking about. Is very small facts if it is. Is in effect at all -- very weak association between exposure. Is that it's a good childhood and diseases like lung cancer -- -- heart is. And it's not clear that it is it's even a cause and effect relationship. Let alone is certainly not a big risks between now. If there is accurate is very small and you have to -- back compared to other things that parents by the decisions -- might -- That actual involvement bigger risks and -- -- let their kids play football for example. You know or or or it goes skateboarding. And the risk of injury is is more substantial risk being exposed to second so we going to say they shouldn't do that. I thought the question when you're you're dealing with children after -- look at. A level risk involved in nature of the risk and decide whether. There's really just by government and I would. I would they generally know it does not. You can imagine a situation where some. Trial has severe respiratory. Disease the activated by smoking people ministers and all the time is everywhere and it really the doctors say it really hurt them. You can imagine our generation and imagine -- like that I would say generally. The risk is just not substantial answer them. Some reasoning would all those cute can be government and been. Over parents that smoke out children. And we have seen restriction on the currency in. With too much. It's well. You're putting that gotten another example -- -- that may. On. All court with respect with their children eat what they let the Indy. You know and then you know it happened where work is our. You know more more of these and people argued that shouldn't intervene. The -- -- -- to have. Their is that interest. And could be -- position to judge those interest obviously they don't always do the job. But -- mark to rule on that they should be very. You know high burden for the government the common. And interfere in the relationship. So that means it. All of these cases aren't principles the same you're talking about decisions cancer making it might -- as you have to look. At the nature of the risk and also -- in the rest of these. Government and especially it's extremely important home. You're causing just by. The -- -- -- intervention against the -- that child might suffer. You know there. All right good -- so -- to be bottom of the hour so let -- take Harper's regular -- joined those. Authors from bitter re introducing books one to the old saying yeah it's in the depends have brought news. And of the total or your own good -- and does smoking crusade and the tyranny. Of public. You know more of those -- -- that said my doubts about the anti smoking campaign in this country. He trusts the government to readily admit that and I'll just don't feel like we need all this regulation would -- troops. Every time I have an organization on its anti smoking and drug pot whatever maybe. Always say to them. Cigarette smoking cause this human death -- in this covenant health care in the hospital yeah. In the -- on Wednesday. Why don't true work. What should lobby which they do not do it all -- into the mix cigarettes illegal. And the question is that they never and then to the question because number one they're making very good salaries in the organization -- And and number two a lot of parts that spewed huge amounts of money from the buried substance. That were saying we shouldn't be selling. So -- I have my -- old situation. And welfare of an author that I think you a little bit and Jacob so. He's with a reason magazine reason dot com senior editor. Nationally syndicated columnist and he's written books. Called -- -- its independence of drug use. Tell me about -- You know basically the -- of that book is that we should apply the same moral distinctions to illegal drugs that we -- On the same legal distinctions as well. Which is to indicate about oh we distinguish between use and abuse these days somebody as a social drinker. Or occasional drink for a moderate drinker. We Anderson is that different from being -- at a actual drug and alcohol. We also distinguish between people -- -- they -- heavily. Never drive under the influence and people do you know that poses a threat to other people. And we don't penalize people for Britain in general we don't arrest people Purcell hall anymore. Even though -- -- all kinds of potential hazards and pretty much every the people worry about with respect to illegal drugs. Is also a concern when it comes alcohol make these are all actually more concerned. I'm in those respects -- deputies somehow manage. To handle all without the evidence. So basically the argument and I tried to attack and if there's something fundamentally different. About illegal drugs that makes it impossible to use them and the responsible moderate way. Admittedly strange question but -- mourners who view having similar thoughts. We're good shows on four major worldwide banks in particular it just BC. A call. Over a number of yours over and over and laundering money for drug cartels and terrorist organizations. Finally. A nice -- find nobody -- charge -- there it goes to injury. Then we have a law that allowed the Justice Department local police when they seized. Dwelling boats cars or drug -- They get to -- Keep 80% of proceeds. At auction so local police local sure of -- funded and lord -- by the drug trade. And then we get into the two major corporations. Then have prisons in 24 states in the country. With calm and try that demand the bids be -- 80% over twenty year period. When you connect all those dots I think we're really working. At quote getting rid of drugs. Well. You know there is there's certainly our financial contrasts. In keeping in maintaining the war. No question that people benefit financially people out there a lot of people livelihoods thanks so worn -- that would not have those options they -- by the hopes they would. Not be working. DA or working. You know -- -- not is. The Wendy's Wendy's. Is an art. Police would not happen the same sources. Forfeiture money and they do that you mentioned. -- on the other hand they're in -- financial interest in making it legal and that you mention him as an example tobacco. And then you suspect that that one of the reasons that people locked illegals that it is nice sources by the government -- -- government. In terms of money from cigarette the government is really -- -- And the government makes much more money from the sale of cigarettes and back to. So you wanna you know you'd think tobacco exactly evil and we we don't like the product quality -- -- so -- really been back in the -- -- in terms of -- get the problems. So about it the -- that you know that and that is not the than they would give up that money. In the same way people when they talk about legalizing marijuana. Law and emphasized -- total tax revenue I don't like you that are you very much as I. Don't think it should be special taxes. And things that people approve. But that does -- to be persuasive to a lot of people the idea that -- -- take this product. That is illegal which -- is benefiting certain interest that. Many of those interests are criminals ride these are people lower and a lot of money. Of Sony's substances that are much more expensive than it would otherwise be. You know safety is the director of people so. It is the -- to take money away from you know murderous cartels and in Mexico. And it is a legitimate businesses right and some of that money would -- about the government or actions. -- that the killing a lot of people. I think that. People who have a financial interest in continuing the war on drugs don't necessarily but it lightly at this -- my only lonely job. And wives you know we've got drug probe -- I think they probably the most are condensed. To -- and what they're doing it for the public. In of people very powerful ability to -- -- so what that that which it but also mr. I think the most -- people who who support drug provision are sincere in the same area that now there there's a definite. A little scuba actually groups when when I sat down -- the children. Through your mind where and when meant what we're going to be talking about certain roads. These are all yo I'm I'm all for. Lack of government control but I don't -- -- for your hospital bills -- your smoke. Right and that -- That's a frequent argument. But. The evidence actually suggest that on balance smoking reduces. Costs -- Because people. Who smoked and died earlier. Which means they do not broad Social Security is much. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Don't much out. -- -- look at what with the -- he. You know resort altogether how what happened to government's stand up -- -- and it looks like it actually with the law. I don't think -- -- the other oh that we shouldn't Bertelsmann. Everything is taxpayers that equipment. But it is true fiscal picture. -- -- back heated that smoking is sitting. In the end of and the question becomes. You know if you include that we should you know officers. On the -- -- More diligently ours are optimistic that people engages in. Where the vessel picture missile impact different motorcycles as maybe people. Tend to die earlier. And it ended and different government you know accurate. Right. And that the fiscal impact of factory activity might be different people on that is costing the government costing taxpayers money. And I think that we should be reluctant to endorse that sort of argument -- totally open -- right that means. Much like the general you know -- interpretation of public now -- -- that thing you do. Where you in the inning in yours say and treated as. Taxpayer expense you might in my in my outward and -- At the very wide mandate for limiting people's freedoms I think we should be wary of endorsing that idea. Though the government gets more and more involved and health care argument you know becomes more and more common and seems to be more powerful. In it's is sort of helped a lot too because. There's so many things that you do that that -- you know we use it and I think. -- -- -- Or its act as a result of engaging -- activities or been you don't. Exercise or not eating. You know -- -- Not getting enough sleep at night not rest your feet. You know. Two with the with the progress is there and the things you into that could it really have been major medical expenses and actors -- -- situation. And picking up the bulk of that. So you can see that the that that that the implications of that apartment are really quite disturbing and terms. When many people's. Go -- I have to admit. Like your way of thinking Republicans Jacob Solomon. Author or you -- also editor of reason magazine reason dot com. All the groups say yes and into drug use for your room grew at the end I was smoking crusade and tyranny. A public health problems some people get -- book sued Amazon.com. And you -- play. But probably the easiest way to do it. Get the -- -- book of the drug book this interest -- in caucus isn't available it grows its ability to any. Very interesting -- decision I appreciate -- time very much -- great. Governor -- active issue in me below switched back to what -- -- and -- at 10 o'clock hour and appease soared. Has slowed. In an interview with Brian Williams last -- And Brian had a discussion of experts afterwards. A libertarian on -- percent -- -- At 10 o'clock hour and then I had representative. Problem liberal organizations. In power. And -- the got a few surprises. Welcome back talk about some things -- sentencing would June 5 Jews had 0170. To overeat immigrant country succeeds -- 90. Says.