With the latest “scare” over increased terrorism in the US, this graphic provides a bit of reality. Overall, you are 3,000 times more likely to die from a preventable event in the US than from a terrorist attack. That’s right, 3,000 times.
If you really want to be scared, be scared of heart disease. You’re 1,000 times more likely to die of heart disease than terrorism.
You’re 50 times more likely to eat yourself to death than to be a victim of terrorism. After the Nathan’s hotdog eating contest and supersizing, it’s not all that surprising…
Here’s the kicker: you’re 60 times more likely to kill yourself than to be killed by terrorism. That’s right, it’s more likely that you’ll do the deed yourself.
So, the next time someone tries to scare you with the big, mean, evil-doers, just think about: donuts, cheeseburgers, butter, pizzas, cigarettes, depression, etc. – they’re far more likely to kill you than any terrorist.
And a thought, just a thought. If we’re so concerned with preserving human life (particularly human life in christian democratic countries) shouldn’t we be spending most of our resources to reduce that preventable 10 million person loss rather than chase the phantom of terrorism?
We should be ashamed, the terrorists have won because as a nation we’re preoccupied (nee’, terrorized) by their actions. Pitiful.
Since my posts week-to-date have been grouchy and serious, I thought I’d try to lighten the mood a little today. The tag line from the When Harry met Sally deli scene simply leapt to mind when I saw this photo…
So clever, so true, and I wish I would have written this routine. It’s interesting that humor seems to be the one place that truth is being told in this country. Carlin is very witty and very right.
The Daily Show actually shows more real news with intelligent commentary than the so called “real news.” Since the “real news” seems to be reporting on rumors and celebrity faus paux, perhaps it’s not that strange that the “fake news” has become the “real news.”
Since the 2003 invasion, it’s clear that Iraqi resistance (and later Al Queda) are intent upon attacking anything they can, inside the country and, if they can manage it, outside the country. My response to this “report” – no shit sherlock. Get back to us when the senior officials will make their names known and there are some specific and credible details to act upon. Until then, quit reporting on rumor and innuedo. After all, this is the same brain trust that gave us the NIE saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them on us. CNN and the rest of the media, unless you have something to say that is based on facts, don’t report. There is enough nonsense going on that there is no shortage of news. And I don’t mean Britney’s latest underwear scandal.
Ask yourself this question: if there is nothing specific and tangible to act upon, why is this “story” being reported? The answers are disturbing. It can only be to make you visit CNN and help drive fear throughout the nation.
Meanwhile, if you want to be scared about something, concentrate on the fact that as a citizen, you are 16 times more likely now than in 1980 to be arrested and incarcerated in the US. The US government has reserved the right to call anyone, including you, a terrorist, spy on you, torture you, and detain you without due process indefinitely. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re not paying attention.
There is something important to be learned about the chart above, which shows the homicide rate per 100,000 citizens in the US in the years listed. Notice the period between 1920 and 1933. The homicide rate increased from about 6.8 per 100,000 to nearly 10 per 100,000 in this time period. Notice the trend from 1934 out, the rate decreases steadily and by 1940 is 6 per 100,000. What happened in this period of time to cause this increase in violence? The “war on alcohol” otherwise known as prohibition.
Let me start this entry by specifying that other than light alcohol consumption and the odd aspirin, I don’t have anything to do with drugs. But, I can’t help but observe that if people want to use drugs, they find a way to do so, legal or not. This human desire coupled with prohibition of substances creates demand that hardened criminals see as a profitable business opportunity, results in poor quality substances with far greater health risks, and entices otherwise lawful citizens to engage in risky activity to sate their desire for the effect of the substances.
National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)–the “noble experiment”–was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition–most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.[2]
Like the homicide chart at the top of this entry, there is something to be learned from this data. Since 1980 (when the renewed war on drugs came to the forefront in the Reagan Administration,) the population of people supervised by the Department of Justice has increased from 3.8x from 1.8M to just over 7M in 2005. When we simply look at incarceration (jail + prison) the population has increased 4.4x from 503,586 inmates to 2,193,798 inmates in 2005. The 1980 Census shows the population total of 227M and US Census estimates for 2005 population shows a net increase of 0.27x to 288M. That means the US Prison population has grown 16 times faster than the population at large during the 25 year period between 1980 and 2005.
Here’s the key question: if we were winning the war on drugs, shouldn’t the prison population stabilize at some point rather than simply escalate? In 1980, 0.0022% of our population was incarcerated. In 2005, 0.0076% of our population is incarcerated.
Why the disparity between population growth at large and prisoner growth? The “war on drugs.”
The “war on drugs” has been raging ever since 1930 when Harry J. Anslinger (aided by William Randolf Hearst’s desire to sell more newspapers) began an organized public smear campaign of the negative impact of marijuana. The facts were irrelevant in this campaign and it has been used as the blue print for subsequent attacks on illegal substances. After 77 years of failure, uncounted trillions of dollars, and who knows how many unnecessary deaths, it’s time to reexamine this failed policy of prohibition and so called “war on drugs.”
Should all illicit substances be made legal? No, I don’t believe that substances where repeatable, reputable scientific examination has shown nearly immediate mortal danger to humans from the substance should be legal. But let’s be honest, the demand for drugs that kill their users quickly is low. There are mainstream illicit substances like marijuana that are no more dangerous than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine. These substances should be decriminalized, regulated, and taxed which would create a new revenue stream, reduce the stress on our courts and prison system, and allow funds for treatment of addiction and education.
Common sense dictates what we must do. Let’s get on with it.
