Drugs, Sex, and Biotechnology
            

            The papers are still milking Bush and the drug thing because they're filling
the vacuum that has arisen because you have to cover the GOP front-runner, but
he isn't saying anything substantive, let alone controversial. The reason
politicians won't be honest about their marijuana use is simple: If they
admitted they had enjoyed pot and suffered no adverse effects, this would raise
uncomfortable questions about why they don't come out against laws that put
people in jail and confiscate their property for doing the same thing. And
they're just too cowardly to take on the drug-war lobby. Even legalization
advocates are for the most part scared to defend drug use as a legitimate
pleasure or the right to alter your own consciousness as a civil liberty; they
just talk about "harm reduction." There are three opinions you can't voice in
America without being dismissed as a crackpot, if not worse: The '60s
experiments in consciousness expansion were basically a good thing; organized
religion is oppressive; children and teen-agers have a right to enjoy their
sexuality.

            And speaking of religion, the Wall Street Journal had a story on a
coalition of practitioners of various religions who are suing the FDA to get
the government to label genetically engineered food, on the grounds that food
with genes from other organisms may violate religious dietary laws. I'm on
their side on this one, as I think the bioengineers are mad scientists who
don't know and don't care about the potential consequences of their
bio-arrogance, and I want to boycott their products, just as I don't want to
eat beef with antibiotics or milk with growth hormone. Of course, this is just
what the industry is worried about, as an official at the Biotechnology
Industry Organization admitted in the article. They argue that since such a
boycott would be irrational and would ruin the industry, the information should
be withheld. Now, here's an issue for defenders of the free market. How can I
make a free choice of what to buy if the seller won't tell me what I'm buying
(and I can't simply not buy food)? And don't I have the right to reject goods I
don't want for whatever reason I please, rather than have biotech companies
decide what's best for me? Where is the Cato Institute on this one?

            I look forward to your take on the Voice . I haven't seen the new
model--I would have to drive to Woodstock to get it, and anyway, I think they
get issues a week late.