War Hawks

The war on drugs is failing America.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom advocated Thursday for ending the war on drugs. It costs too much financially and socially.
While it is debatable whether or not crime rates would decline 70%, Newsom demonstrates a keen understanding of the big picture ramifications that the injustice of this war entail.

SF County sheriff Mike Hennessey told local reporters that 60-75% of inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses or have underlying substance abuse problems. The repercussions for someone convicted for drug-related violations perpetuate the spiral into stigma, unemployment, crime, and poverty. In essence, the war on drugs makes the war on poverty nearly impossible to win.

But this argument is not about legalization of harmful substances; it's about finding a better way to handle the problem. It's no secret that drug-use, drug-related crimes, and poverty are no strangers to each other. Prevention is certainly a worth-while venture. Drug rehabilitation programs address the problem head-on: substance abuse treatment. Is the sending of these offenders into isolation from society with violent offenders and sociopaths the best way to re-acquaint addicts with normative, law-abiding, socially acceptable behavior? My guess, and the re-incarceration rate and rise in drug-related violence, lean towards "no."

Clinical Economics

Jeffrey Sachs argues that development economics needs to be more clinical - that the process of assessing and treating an economic malady needs to resemble more the rigor, insight and practicality of modern medicine. Economics needs new tools to address the new issues we face in the 21st century, requiring better development of the underlying science as well as the systematization of where that science is brought to bear on a particular "patient." Sachs argues for the implementation of the differential diagnosis in solving modern developmental disparities. The differential diagnosis checklist for economics includes taking an appropriate history of several elements, including the policy framework, physical geography, cultural barriers and geopolitics.
I would argue the application of the scientific process to not only economics, but also the other social sciences that impact our daily lives. Every aspect of governance should undergo the same examination and scrutiny that is the scientific foundation of modern medicine. Why shouldn't the same standards of quality assessment and verification be applied to the other spheres of human life that affect us just as much or more as medicine does? Why shouldn't we apply the differential diagnosis?