Categories
Common Sense crime and punishment general freedom nannyism privacy responsibility

Pain Economies

Looking for a new doctor, a colleague of mine called his friend’s primary care clinic, and was told, “We are taking all patients except pain management cases.”

He was thankful his health issues were not pain-related.

After reading Leslie Kendall Dye’s Salon piece, “But what if I actually need my painkillers?” you will easily understand: America doesn’t make it easy for those who must fight constant pain.

Ms. Dye’s story is harrowing. Her chronic pain, the residue of a ballet injury, makes her personal, day-​to-​day experience not primarily about economizing pleasures, but economizing pains.

So she takes Tramadol. Regularly. Even with the drug, her agony too often returns. What she tries to do is carry on with as little relief as possible while living an active, normal life, always risking excruciating pain levels.

And she’s constantly harassed and inconvenienced and probed and lectured. “Each time I take my painkiller prescription to a pharmacy, I can’t help feeling suspected of a crime.”

She’s not paranoid.

The government is out to get her. And her doctors.

All to “save” the lives of people who “abuse” the drugs.

I read about cases of lost souls, overdoses, suicides, black market pills, portions of towns laid waste by narcotic abuse, and I worry. I worry for the addicts, but I also worry for those of us who would not be able to carry on without responsible pain management.

She admits to feeling “conflicted” about this.

My prescription? Feel less conflicted. Were today’s standard individual responsibility, not societal responsibility, responsible patients would suffer less.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Pain Medicine Police

 

Categories
general freedom nannyism property rights responsibility too much government

Why the Tiny Domicile

The “tiny house” movement has gained momentum. More and more people — especially young people and childless people — see the virtue of very small houses. They are cheaper, can be made energy-​efficient, have an almost necessarily smaller “environmental footprint,” and are mobile.

And I can see the attraction. For one thing, a tiny house would be easier to clean than what I have. For another? Snug. Many of the efforts are very cleverly designed and built. And certainly for young singles, they make a great deal of sense.

But, wouldn’t you know it, there is a problem here. Government.

Urban housing authorities, zoning boards, and the like, have not exactly been accommodating to this new development.

Which is, in its way, typical, and typically frustrating. After all, many of the reasons folks are looking to tiny houses result from government regulation in the first place. City, metro and county governments have been so poorly accommodating to diversity in housing demands that costs have risen horribly.

This is all explained over at Reason, which draws the bureaucratic environment of the nation’s capital in relation to tiny homes: “they’re illegal, in violation of several codes in Washington D.C.‘s Zoning Ordinance. Among the many requirements in the 34 chapters and 600 pages of code are mandates defining minimum lot size, room sizes, alleyway widths, and ‘accessory dwelling units’ that prevent tiny houses from being anything more than a part-​time residence.”

This leaves Reason’s featured tiny home owner in yet another bad-​government-​induced limbo: “allowed to build the home of his dreams — he just can’t live there.”

We need tiny government. Or at least tiny-​accommodating government. Really… both.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Big Brother vs. Burger and Fries

Restaurants in some towns are now being forced to stop using trans fats. According to the latest biochemistry, trans fats are bad for you.

No doubt. Many foodstuffs are bad for you, can even kill you, at least in the long run. Maybe — if you eat too much of them, exercise too little, and don’t get flattened by a Mack truck before your vessels clog.

But what business is it of anyone in government what risks I take to enjoy my candy bar? And if it’s kosher to ban restaurants from using trans fats, what’s next, outlawing sugar, grease, and fast food?

Outlawing fast food? McDonald’s will always be with us.

Except in South Los Angeles, where a town council has just passed a year-​long moratorium on new fast-​food restaurants.

And so yesterday’s argument from absurdity becomes today’s compromise and tomorrow’s legislation. South LA is not facing an outright ban on fast food. But what the  nutritional tyrants are doing there comes close. And nudges us closer to the outright prohibition they would prefer. They just don’t want individuals to make their own choices about what food to eat or restaurants to patronize.

What’s next, a moratorium on … well, let’s not give these guys any more ideas, even absurd ones. What we can conceive as idiotic they can spiff up as policy. And somehow not laugh.

But then, I’m not laughing now, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.