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)