Reason Foundation

NJ Legislature Exploring Decriminalizing Marijuana

Posted on May 21, 2012, 11:37am | Harris Kenny

Today the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee is considering Assembly Bill Number 1465 (A1465), which would most notably decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana, and impose a new range of civil penalties instead. Roseanne Scott, state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, told The Star-Ledger, "(this) the furthest a bill to decriminalize marijuana has ever gotten in the New Jersey Legislature." Specifically, the bill statement reads:

This bill would decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana. A person who is found to possess 15 grams or less of marijuana would be subject to a $150 fine for a first violation, a $200 fine for a second violation, and a $500 fine for a third or subsequent violation…

In addition, any person who is 21 years of age or older who commits a third or subsequent violation would be referred to a drug education program approved by the Division of Mental Health and Addition Services in the Department of Human Services. A person who is less than 21 years of age at the time of the violation shall be referred to an approved drug education program following any violation. The person would be responsible for paying any costs associated with his participation in the program, consistent with his ability to pay. If the violation is committed by a person under the age of 18, the person would be referred to the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court for an appropriate disposition.

A person who possesses drug paraphernalia for the personal use of 15 grams or less of marijuana would no longer have committed a criminal violation but would be subject to a $100 civil penalty.

Additionally, this bill would establish that it is no longer a disorderly persons offense to be under the influence of marijuana or to fail to voluntarily deliver 15 grams or less of marijuana to the nearest law enforcement officer. This bill would also eliminate the requirement that a person who operates a motor vehicle while in possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana must pay a $50 fine and forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years.

The Commissioner of Human Services would adopt any rules and regulations necessary to effectuate the purposes of section 5 of this bill. This bill would not apply to persons who are in compliance with the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act,” N.J.S.A.24:6I-1 et al.

A1465 will likely benefit from recent momentum on drug policy reform, and enjoys widespread support in its own right. For example, New Jersey policymakers recently approved medical marijuana for the first time.  A1465 was first introduced by Assemblymen Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) and has bipartisan support from 15 Democrats and three Republicans. And last week The Star-Ledger editorial board weighed in on A1465 bluntly, concluding:

Treat pot the same way we do alcohol, with education and treatment. Not by calling the cops. What didn’t work for bootleggers won’t stop the stoners.

Despite the aforementioned support, A1465 faces an uncertain future. It’s not clear whether the bill will make it out of committee, let alone out of the legislature. And while Governor Chris Christie has signaled interest in criminal sentencing reform, his office has not publicly commented on this particular bill.

Drug policy and criminal sentencing reform continue to gain momentum in New Jersey, making A1465 a bill to watch.

APR 2011: Corrections and Public Safety

Posted on May 2, 2012, 5:35pm | Harris Kenny

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2011 (APR 2011) concluded this week with the Corrections and Public Safety section, which provides an overview of the latest news and trends in public-private partnerships in corrections and public safety. Highlights include:

• According to the most recent data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the total U.S. prison population declined for the first time in nearly four decades. The decrease is attributed largely to a decline in new prison admissions relative to prison releases in state prisons.
• Approximately 8 percent of the total prison population is currently housed in privately owned and/or operated facilities, while the remaining 92 percent continue to be housed in government-run facilities.
• In the 2011 case Brown v. Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled California’s correctional system is providing unconstitutional mental and medical care to inmates. At the time, California held about 156,000 inmates in a system designed for less than 80,000 inmates – nearly twice the design capacity. In response, the court ordered the state reduce its system-wide prison population at or below an average of 137.5 percent of prison design capacity.
• A new form of public-private partnership is emerging in the United Kingdom and Florida that could dramatically reduce recidivism and transform corrections, whereby contractors would be compensated for achieving specific performance goals in reducing recidivism and improving rehabilitation. Florida is exploring this model for an 18-county region and would apply dozens of performance measures to quantify outcomes.
• In September 2011, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, under the guidance of Gov. John Kasich, announced the results of a large-scale procurement that will see the state raise $72 million from the sale of one state prison to a private operator—the first sale of its kind in the nation—and two others turned over to private management, for an estimated $13 million in annualized cost savings.
• Lawmakers in Texas, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and elsewhere are pursuing meaningfully expanding the role the private sector plays in inmate healthcare delivery.

» Annual Privatization Report 2011: Corrections and Public Safety [pdf, 1.4 MB]

» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2011 homepage

Supreme Court Rules Police Need a Warrant to Track Your Car

Posted on January 23, 2012, 3:07pm | Steven Titch

In a major step toward defending constitutional rights and due process in an age of high-tech surveillance, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that police require a search warrant to place a tracking device on a suspect's vehicle.

In doing so, the high court overturned the conviction of Washington, D.C nightclub owner Antoine Jones on charges of conspiracy to sell drugs. To convict Jones, prosecutors used as evidence information from a GPS tracker that had been attached to Jones' SUV. Although the Washington, D.C. police had obtained a search warrant for the device, officers did not execute the warrant until the day after it had expired. They also placed the device on the vehicle when it was in Maryland, outside the D.C. jurisdiction of the warrant. Jones' attorneys appealed his conviction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Fourth Amendment grounds against illegal search and seizure. Prosecutors, supported by the Obama administration, argued that the search warrant, however improperly executed, was unnecessary to begin with because GPS tracking was not a search as defined by the Bill of Rights. The Appeals Court disagreed and the Supreme Court today upheld the ruling.

The decision will stand as a watershed moment in the application of Fourth Amendment guarantees in an era where police--from local precincts up to the FBI--have a bevy of intrusive electronic tools at their disposal. Although the decision pertained to electronic surveillance, the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, notably rested on brick-and-mortar aspects, primarily that police trespassed on private property to execute the warrant.

Still, by the court's own admission, the ruling doesn't cover the use of technologies that do not require law enforcement to set foot or otherwise tamper with a suspect's property. These can range from location tracking via automatic highway toll payment systems to the use of thermal and infrared cameras, which can "see" in the dark, and sophisticated radio imaging devices, which, although still in prototype, have the potential to see through walls.  

However, the Supreme Court, as it often does, used this case as an opportunity to set up a framework for future cases that might tackle these greater issues. It chose to say that the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" test that has been used in other Fourth Amendment cases, including Katz v. United States, to allow the use information obtained from a suspect's behavior in public--as well as the use of information if it has been transferred to a third party--did not apply in this case. Even so, the opinion seemed to go out of its way to note that "expectation of privacy" claim was intended to augment, not diminish or replace, citizens' rights against search and seizure as laid down in the Fourth Amendment. It subtly reclaims "expectation of privacy" as touchstone for defendants and makes it less of an escape clause for government snooping.

This could have ramifications should a case involving a warrantless seizure of electronic data from cloud-based third-party storage services, such as Carbonite and Dropbox, come before the Supreme Court. Here again, then, the opinion chose to quote from Katz, reminding us that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

States Coalescing Around Petitioning DEA to Reschedule Marijuana

Posted on December 8, 2011, 5:10pm | Harris Kenny

The Colorado Independent reports today that Colorado is joining Rhode Island and Washington State in “(petitioning) the federal government to change the schedule of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a move they claim will move the conflict between federal drug laws and state laws that allow the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Colorado will file its own request before the end of the year.”

Marijuana (also known as cannabis) is currently a schedule I controlled substance in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations, 21 C.F.R. Section 1308.11. According to the DEA, this scheduling designation means:

(Schedule 1 substances) have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Drugs listed in schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and, therefore, may not be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use. In contrast, drugs listed in schedules II-V have some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use.

Rhode Island and Washington State submitted their petitions several weeks ago, with support from their respective governors (Lincoln Chaffee and Christine Gregoire). Each state has a strong history of leading in this policy area.

• Rhode Island legalized medical marijuana in 2006 through the passage of The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act, which was later amended by Senate Bill (SB) 07-791 and SB 09-185.
• Washington State legalized medical marijuana in 1998 through voter approval of Initiative 692, which was later amended by SB 07-6032, SB 10-5798, and SB 11-5073.

Meanwhile, Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2000 through voter approval of Amendment 20, which was later amended by SB 10-109, House Bill (HB) 10-1284 and HB 11-1043. Colorado was essentially dragged into joining the other states by complying with a two-year old state law (HB 10-1284) that requires:

In recognition of the potential medical value of medical marijuana, (the Department of Revenue) make a request by January 1, 2012 to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to consider rescheduling, for pharmaceutical purposes, medical marijuana from a schedule I controlled substance to a schedule II controlled substance.

Unlike in Rhode Island or Washington State, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will not sign the petition. Hickenlooper is instead opting to have the Department of Revenue submit the petition.

While three states have coalesced around this issue so far, more states are expected to join since 16 states (including the District of Columbia) have now passed medical marijuana laws. In recent weeks Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have made public statements essentially supporting a re-evaluation of the federal government's so-called "War on Drugs."

Changes in state law could have a dramatic impact on law enforcement and correctional policy across the country. States are not required to enforce federal law, so they can get around DEA scheduling, however the specter of federal enforcement haunts medical marijuana patients, producers, and providers. According to the latest U.S. Sentencing Commission data, drug offenses are the second largest category of federal convictions with 26% of those offenders being convicted for marijuana-related offenses. With marijuana legalization ballot measures anticipated in (at least) California and Colorado in the upcoming election, this will likely be a high-profile issue in 2012.

How Long Before Someone Dies Because of an Unsecured Wireless Router?

Posted on April 26, 2011, 11:48am | Steven Titch

According to an AP story out of Buffalo, N.Y., federal agents armed with assault weapons stormed a residence in the early morning hours last month looking for child porn on a home PC. The homeowner, whom the article did not identify, was roughed up and forced to the floor at gunpoint while agents accused him of being a creep and pervert.

Three hours later, after seizing the man’s PC along with his own and his wife’s iPhones and iPads, officials discovered no child porn and conceded that the raid had been a mistake.

It turned out that the resident had an unsecured wireless network, and that a neighbor—the actual culprit arrested a week later—had been using it to avoid detection. The AP does not say whether the Fed apologized for the raid, but the law enforcement community did its best to deflect blame. An official said that the homeowner would have avoided the confrontation if he had secured his home wireless network.

But even the AP article points out that the Feds could have easily determined that the network was unsecured before breaking down the door. And given that somewhat intelligent pedophiles know they can cover their tracks by finding and using someone else’s Internet connection—the AP article lists several examples where it’s been done--agents and their supervisors could have exercised some common sense before conducting a heavily-armed raid.

Here at Reason and formerly the Cato Institute, Randy Balko has been doing some terrific work detailing the cost police paramilitary tactics have had in terms of human life. A regular component of the drug war, these raids, often conducted for their theatrical value, too often end up targeting the wrong house or the wrong people with lethal results for innocent parties. To extend these militarized break-ins in a search for child porn, where the only evidence is an IP address, in a country where, as of 2007, an estimated 80 percent of home wireless networks were unsecure, is downright irresponsible. Police should not be using them; judges should not be approving them.

Besides, the whole (dubious) justification for a surprise, armed-to-the-teeth police raid is that the suspects themselves may be armed, and to prevent a drug stash from being quickly disposed of down a convenient toilet. Whatever you may say about their characters, collectors and distributors of child porn are not likely to be armed or violent, and a laptop or hard drive can’t be erased within seconds. Even if an attempt to delete a disk is made, the data is likely to be recoverable.

Yes, it is wise to secure your home wireless network, but failure to do so is not a crime and certainly not an excuse for police to use when they wrongly terrorize you in your own home. The AP article doesn’t say if the homeowner is pursuing any action against the federal government for the botched raid, but he should. Some expensive judgments today might, in the future, prevent a SWAT team from killing someone while attempting to seize a laptop, only to learn that the real culprit was a creep down the street who rigged a repeater with a potato chip can.

Are Sin Taxes on Marijuana a Price Worth Paying for Reform?

Posted on October 13, 2010, 9:00am | David Godow

Advocates of Proposition 19, the pending California referendum that would legalize the small-scale production and use of marijuana, have made new consumption taxes on cannabis a major selling point for their measure. Proponents claim that tax measures would bring in $1.4 billion for local governments and that marijuana use would be safer under a regime of taxation than prohibition.

Rosy revenue numbers and a promise to remedy social ills are always trotted out to justify new sin taxes; these arguments have been fitted to alcohol, cigarettes, and other unhealthy or otherwise unpopular products for years. Fiscal conservatives like myself counter that sin taxes are regressive, not reliable revenue generators, and fundamentally a bad tax policy tool.

Still, let's be clear that the drawbacks of a potential marijuana tax shouldn't be an impediment to legalization. Removing the legal barriers to responsible marijuana use would be a watershed moment in California and U.S. drug policy, and if new sin taxes are the price for that, that price is certainly worth paying. Still, in the long run, policymakers should remember that a sin tax on cannabis will hurt the poor, hurt the sick and provide little relief for California's perennial budget troubles. 

Much ado has been made about the revenue potential of new levies on marijuana, but sin taxes are notorious for failing to meet fiscal expectations. This problem is magnified in the case of cannabis, because no one knows what the equilibrium price or demand of pot will be after decriminalization. Naturally, California tax administrators have every incentive to highball their guesses. Still, a sobering RAND Corporation study suggested price could drop from $375 per ounce to as low as $38, cutting $400 million in potential sales tax accruals from state $1.4 billion revenue estimate.

Revenue issues aside, the debate has unfortunately glossed over the equally compelling reasons that sin taxes are regressive and unfair. Indeed, one anti-tax argument should be of special interest to reformers that seek to help the poor and helpless: sin taxes almost always have a regressive incidence that draws on the most vulnerable segments of society to pay for general government services.

No estimates of the effects of a marijuana tax address its potential regressivity; lawmakers need to be asking about this. If the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on cannabis than the rich, as is the case with tobacco, soda and almost all other "sinful" products, much of a cannabis tax's revenue would come out of the pockets of California's least well off citizens. Disturbingly, this means that the current drug prohibition regime, responsible for putting so many poor people in jail, may well be replaced by a system that will continue to disproportionately target them.

We've already seen examples of how marijuana taxes can be used to target narrow, vulnerable segments of the population. Take the enthusiasm for taxing medical marijuana. As drug reform pioneer J. Craig Canada has pointed out, even pro-marijuana legalization organizations have advocated these discriminatory levies on medicine, which further inflate the spiraling medical costs of seriously ill people. This, of course, is a strategic move meant to legitimize marijuana use: if government taxes a good, it also tacitly places that good, and users of it, under the aegis of the law. Nonetheless, there's no getting around the fact that the burden of these taxes falls squarely on the sick and vulnerable, who will shell out more for medicine they desperately need.

It makes sense why marijuana advocates push the tax argument. New tax revenue serves as a powerful draw for legislators concerned about spiraling deficits or worried about being seen as "soft on crime." Moreover, the likelihood of new taxes on marijuana won't and shouldn't inhibit the march towards legalization; it is certainly better to have taxed, legal marijuana than remain with the status quo. Still, we should continue to strive for a future in which Californians can legally, safely, and cheaply use cannabis without the regressive and unfair burden of government sin taxes.

CA Will Vote on Legalizing Marijuana

Posted on March 27, 2010, 4:41pm | Adrian Moore

State election officials announced Wednesday that an initiative to legalize marijuana will be on the November ballot, triggering what will likely be an expensive, divisive and much-watched campaign to decide whether California will again lead the nation in softening drug laws.

. . .

Polls have indicated that a majority of voters in California want marijuana legalized, but the margin is not enough to ensure the initiative will win. Two years ago, opponents defeated an attempt to relax the state's drug laws despite being outspent. "It's always easier for people to say no than to say yes for an initiative," said Mark Baldassare, the pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California. "Generally, all it takes is for people to find one reason to say no."

. . .

But the measure, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, goes further, allowing cities and counties to adopt ordinances that would authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana, which could be taxed to raise revenues. It's this feature of the initiative that supporters hope will draw support from voters who are watching their local governments jettison employees and programs in the midst of a severe budget crisis.

Read the rest of the LA Times story here.

Watch Judge Andrew Napolitano explain why marijuana should be legalized.

This campaign will lead to strange bedfellows. For example.

The Sports Stadium and Arena Debacle

Posted on July 1, 2009, 8:20am | Samuel Staley

Anyone following the plight of America's sports stadia and arenas should take a look through this article in the New York Times chronicling the debacle we've created with public subsidies. We have more arenas then ever, and often pit private venues against public ones. They all lose.

"In Glendale, Ariz., the city-owned Jobing.com Arena — which is losing money and events to US Airways Center in nearby Phoenix and a third arena at Arizona State — may lose its National Hockey League franchise, the Phoenix Coyotes, which filed for bankruptcy last month.

"In the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the Target Center, which is owned by the city of Minneapolis, vies with the publicly subsidized Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul. The Minnesota Timberwolves basketball team plays at the Target Center; the Minnesota Wild hockey team plays at Xcel Energy Center. Both sites are losing money, and they must also compete with the University of Minnesota, which has two arenas.

"In Columbus, Ohio, the Blue Jackets hockey team recently opened negotiations to sell its money-losing Nationwide Arena to the county, but the recession has made the sale somewhat unlikely. Nationwide Arena competes for concerts and other nonsporting events with Ohio State University’s Jerome Schottenstein Center, which barely breaks even, according to a report by The Columbus Dispatch."

Perhaps the only thing more stunning is the degree to which owners of these venues continue lobbying for public subsidies and favors to protect their own franchises.

"In New Jersey, the owner of the Devils hockey team, which abandoned the Izod Center in the Meadowlands to play at Prudential Center, wants Gov. Jon S. Corzine to tear down the Izod Center, in the hopes of eliminating a competing venue."

 For those interested in knowing whether these projects make economic sense even in good times, I recommend reading Holycross College economist Victor Matheson's working paper on the subject.

Cutting Government Workers and Raising Taxes

Posted on June 10, 2009, 11:36am | Adrian Moore

On the side of appropriate reactions to the economic downturn, many states are cutting their workforce, even accounting for "stimulus" spending.

Already, 16 states downsized their staffs in fiscal 2009, which for most ends on June 30, according to a report last week from two state industry groups. Another 17 states are planning reductions for fiscal 2010.

Some 17,000 state workers have lost their jobs and another 98,000 layoffs have been proposed, according to a compilation by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor union.

On the other hand, most states are considering tax hikes totalling about $24 billion, half of which is in California.

Some 29 states are recommending tax and fee increases for the coming fiscal year.

California, which is struggling to close a $21.3 billion budget gap, accounts for $11.3 billion of the hike. Illinois makes up another $4.4 billion, while New York is proposing $4 billion in additional levies.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Says Its Time to Discuss Legalizing Marijuana

Posted on May 6, 2009, 3:09pm | Adrian Moore

It a good idea for a bad reason.  Arnie says it's time to talk about legalization, but not because of the harms of the war on drugs or the silliness of treating marijuana differently from alchohol, but because if it were legal it could be taxed and bring in more money for the state to spend. 

Sigh.

How about these 10 good reasons to legalize?

Heck the aricle mentions a poll showing 56% of registered voters approve of legalization. If majority support is enough to justify banning gay marriage, why isn't it enough to justify legalizing marijuana?

But most of all, Jacob Sullum here parses why a focus on excise tax revenue is off base when talking about legalization.

From the government's (and taxpayer's) point of view, the real fiscal benefit from abandoning the war on marijuana would come from no longer arresting, prosecuting, and jailing pot smokers, sellers, and growers. Drug law enforcement costs something like $40 billion a year, and marijuana accounted for 43 percent of drug arrests in 2005. That doesn't mean legalizing marijuana would save two-fifths of the money spent on the drug war, since marijuana offenders are much less likely to be imprisoned than other kinds of drug offenders. But the savings certainly would be substantial. And that's not counting all the indirect costs, such as marijuana offenders' legal expenses, loss of freedom, forgone income, and so on.

In short, the focus on the excise tax bonanza that legal marijuana supposedly would bring—a theme that is often emphasized by opponents of the war on drugs—is misplaced. Which is just as well, since I'm not a big fan of excise taxes.

L.A. City Council Votes to Study Parking Meter, Garage Privatization

Posted on May 1, 2009, 5:28pm | Leonard Gilroy

Earlier this week, the L.A. City Council took a big step towards implementing Mayor Villaraigosa's budget proposal by approving a $500,000 contract to study the feasibility of privatizing its 41,000 parking meters and six parking garages:

A plan to sell six city-owned garages and 41,000 parking meters was a step closer to becoming a reality Tuesday as the Los Angeles City Council agreed to spend $500,000 to determine the fiscal feasibility of privatization.

The contract directs JP Morgan Chase, Ramirez & Co. and Loop Capital to assess the benefits and risks of selling garages and meters in Los Angeles. Chicago completed two similar deals over the last three years, netting more than $1.7 billion for the Windy City.

It's unclear how much Los Angeles could net by selling its parking facilities, but the mayor's office assumes at least $80 million of whatever is raised would be used to balance the 2009-10 budget. Most of the proceeds would be put into reserve accounts.

"There are a number of pieces that are part of this puzzle," said interim Chief Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna."We're asking for the authority to enter into some contracts with financial advisers that will help us look at our revenue stream, both today and certainly over the life of the concession."

As proposed, the city would sell off 41,000 parking meters and garages at the Hollywood & Highland complex, Pershing Square, the Cinerama Dome and lots on Robertson Boulevard and Broxton and Cherokee avenues.

The city's parking meters gross about $46 million a year, Ciranna said, but the Department of Transportation will have to spend $25 million to $30 million to upgrade the equipment if the meters continue to be owned by the city. Los Angeles also has $138 million in outstanding debt on three parking facilities.

For more on parking facility privatization, see my recent posts here and here.

Medical Rationing Masquerading as Quality Care

Posted on April 9, 2009, 11:12am | Shikha Dalmia

Drs. Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband wrote a column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal revealing a frightening new concept called "pay for performance" that Medicare bureaucrats are toying with to allegedly ensure proper patient care. Under it, Medicare would link doctor payments not to the services doctors provide, as is currently the case, but the quality of care they offer.

Sounds eminently sensible, right? And it would be if performance had something to do with patient satisfaction and actual clinical outcomes: whether, say -- and I don't want to go off on a limb here -- the patient actually lives or dies! That, however, is not the case. Rather, the quality of care is measured by a doctor's adherence to standardized protocols of care prescribed by a committee of experts.

Take diabetes, for instance, the good physicians note. In Massachusetts that has already institutionalized this new system, doctors are required to maintain normal levels of blood sugar in critically ill ICU patients.  If a physician allows blood sugar levels to rise above pre-ordained levels, he might even have to attend "re-education sessions" to be indoctrinated into the importance of the rule.

But maintaining normal blood sugar levels requires administering insulin. Yet in some patients it might well be better to tolerate higher-than-normal sugar levels rather than expose them to risk of too much insulin. Indeed, the New England Journal of Medicine last month published the results of a randomized study conducted on 6,000 patients that found that more patients died in the group where doctors were required to tightly control sugar levels compared to the one in which  they were allowed to follow a more flexible protocol.

The moral of the story? Medicine is more art than science and rigid rules that force doctors to ignore the trade offs in individual cases don't produce better overall outcomes - no matter how much bureaucratic backers of "performance based medicine" and "quality metrics" pretend otherwise.

Despite these emerging problems with this concept, the Obama administration is working with Congress to mandate that all Medicare payments be tied to "quality metrics." Why? Because ultimately, in my view, this concept has less to do with improving -- and and more to do with rationing -- care to control runaway costs. Standardized treatments, inevitably, cost less than unorthodox, experimental therapies - and pay-for-performance would incentivize the first and disincentivize - even penalize - the second.

In short, pay-for-performance is simply rationed care in sheep's clothing.

Welcome to 1984.

The French Patient

Posted on April 6, 2009, 9:59pm | Shikha Dalmia

The French health care system is the pride and joy of proponents of national health care. Unlike the horror that is the British National Health Care Service, it is claimed, the French have figured out a way to do it right. Their government, that can control neither its unemployment rate nor its (chronically striking) employed, is somehow still able to provide excellent care without waiting lines in a cost-effective way and without back-breaking taxes.

But if that sounds too good to be true, that's because it is. In today's Globe and Mail, Claire de Oliveria of the C.D. Howe Institute reveals that more than 92% of French residents supplement their stellar, government-provided health care with private insurance. "In fact, private insurance makes up 12.7 per cent of all health-care spending in France, a percentage exceeded only by the Netherlands and the United States." Why do the French have to turn to the rapacious private sector for help? Because most public health services require co-payments ranging from 10 to 40 per cent of the cost that, if patients had to cover solely out-of-pocket, they would likely get financially wiped out.

And despite this substantial infusion of private dollars, Oliveria notes, the French health care system has still been running deficits the past few years. "Indeed, the health system is the single largest factor driving France's overall budget deficit," he writes. "The impact will surely begin to affect the amount and quality of services provided."

So much for the French model!

Whole thing here.

Taxation by Mis-Representation

Posted on March 21, 2009, 5:26pm | Shikha Dalmia

Watch Norah O'Donnell nail California Congresswoman Maxine Waters for committing taxpayers to millions of dollars in AIG bonuses without even reading the stimulus provision.

Guaranteed to make you both laugh and cry at the same time.

Marijuana Arrests Fall in Denver After Ballot Initiative

Posted on February 10, 2009, 10:00am | Adrian Moore

Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum notes that "prosecutions of adults for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana dropped by a fifth in Denver last year, following the passage of a November 2007 ballot initiative that instructed city officials to make such cases their "lowest law enforcement priority."

People at Michael Phelps Party Arrested

Posted on February 10, 2009, 12:00am | Adrian Moore

Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum says "the Richland County Sheriff's Department has arrested eight people on marijuana charges in connection with the November party where Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was photographed taking a bong hit."