Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!cca!decvax!ittvax!swatt From: swatt@ittvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: A Flame at Affirmative Action Message-ID: <769@ittvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 5-Jun-83 11:02:47 EDT Article-I.D.: ittvax.769 Posted: Sun Jun 5 11:02:47 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jun-83 22:19:34 EDT References: cbosgd.27 Lines: 124 This is actually regarding Mark Horton's re-cast of Andy's comparison of AA vs. smoking. Mark asks: Let's make a more rational comparison, say AA vs. legislation that completely outlaws smoking. (Assume nicotine tablets would be made available by perscription for persons already addicted.) The same arguments can be made - the ends justify the means. In fact, the only people hurt would be the tobacco industry (for which I feel absolutely no sympathy) and existing smokers (for whom I feel some, but very limited, sympathy). Now, Andy, care to shoot this one down? (Actually, this may start another good debate, but I'm not sure I can see how the two examples relate to each other.) This assumes the mandated substitute (nicotine tablets) would be acceptable to smokers. I will mention in passing that the only reason we DON'T have such tablets available today is the FDA. If this assumption is true, one would expect that simply introducing such tablets (i.e. recinding an existing ban) would have the same effect, particularly if the tablets were cheaper than cigarettes (which they could be made to be by simply NOT taxing them as cigarettes are now taxed). If, for whatever reasons, the substitute tablets were NOT acceptable to smokers, you have just created a black market in cigarettes. Banning "undesirable" substances was tried in 1740 when importation of rum into Georgia was made illegal; it didn't work. It was tried again with Prohibition, which didn't work. We are trying it now with the various narcotics and controlled substances laws, which aren't working. Whenever something is banned, it just becomes part of the black market. Black markets flourish in Communist countries because so much is either proscribed, or not available on terms people find acceptable. Far more than "only the tobacco industry" would be hurt, in exactly the same way that far more than "just the booze" industry was hurt during prohibition, and far more than "just the narcotics" industry is hurt by our current drug laws. The injury stems from the application of coercion to MAKE people behave in some way differently from what they otherwise would. This case is related to AA only in that the negative effects of using force to accomplish some desirable goal can easily outweigh the benefits of obtaining that goal. In the cases I mentioned, the stated goals were never achieved, which leaves ONLY the negative effects. Tobacco is an especially interesting case because it has been around long enough to involve several agencies at contradictory purposes: + Tobacco subsidies. Yes, that's right, tax money is still spent to subsidize tobacco production, making the growing of tobacco more profitable than it otherwise would be. In fact the state of Connecticut grows tobacco!! (under special nets that raise the temperature). + Health agencies. Having spent some tax money to enhance tobacco production, the federal govennment spends more to tell people about the dangers of using tobacco. + Cigarette taxes. Failing to disuade people from smoking, the federal government then taxes cigarettes. The agencies responsible for taking in revenue would lose if cigarette sales went down. + FDA. This agency does several things. Studies have shown that it is the nicotine which satisfies the habit, but the tar which causes the cancer. It profits manufacturers therefore to process cigarettes to remove tar, and then enhance the nicotine content. This is "felony adulteration", like putting vitamin C in booze (which some studies have shows reduces hangovers). In several countries in Europe, nicotine chewing gum is available especially to help people overcome smoking; the FDA prohibits this in the U.S. So the FDA prevents manufacture of what could be safer cigarettes, and prevents the availability of a possible substitute. Various agencies of the federal government, all spending tax money, combine by contradictory goals to produce no net change. One could presumably eliminate all these programs without changing the status quo, but saving those portions of the federal budget. Fat chance. I haven't seen any studies of the negative effects of the AA programs. One might speculate: + Companies faced with A.A. programs might decide NOT to expand (hire more employees). This might not be quite no naked; like everything else, companies expand hiring only if they believe the increased cost is justified by the probable increased gain. If A.A. programs increase the cost of carrying employees (the "fully burdened cost"), then the same probable increased gain in the market justifies hiring fewer new employees. [ Milton Freedman once calcualted that the work required in person-hours to fill out all the required federal forms EXCEEDED the total work force of G.M. devoted to producing automobiles; the cost of filling out forms is of course reflected in the ultimate price charged for whatever commodity is produced. ] + When expanding into new plants, the A.A. programs might make domestic expansion less attractive than foreign expansion. Instead of building new plants in this country, companies might prefer to invest in plants in Hong Kong, or Singapore. These are cases of trading "visible benefits" (increased minority hiring) for "invisible damages" (lower level of domestic economic growth). The government agencies will happily trumpted the former, but the latter is somebody else's problem. As I said, this is just speculation on my part; I haven't seen any studies. It is hard to imagine a study could establish a causal connection anyway; the movement of jobs and capital is affected by so many things that it would be difficult to factor out just the effects of the A.A. programs. The only way to do it would be to show that considerations imposed by A.A. DID affect decision making in these or similar ways in actual cases. Given the atmosphere today, you are not likely to get anyone to admit they tried to "get around" A.A. - Alan S. Watt --------------------------------------- The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect the policies of ITT. ITT is an equal opportunity employer. (ITT also prohibits smoking in meetings)