To Legalize Pot or Not
Legalizing pot is not now as radical a proposal as it might seem. All manner of "establishment" figures have supported similar plans: from a Presidential Commission in the US to the Principal of King's College, London, who wanted to see the drug taxes and proceeds used for university research. There are, indeed, several unsatisfactory problems created by the present ban on cannabis: the law is widely disregarded and thus helps to bring other laws into disrespect; it can lead to unnecessary—and possibly illegal—police searches; and it increases friction between the police and minority groups. Finally, if drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol are permitted, then why not pot?
The last point is easy to counter: quasi-Government approval for two harmful drugs is no argument for permitting a third. Unlike drink and tobacco, there is still some doubt about the harmful effects of cannabis, but research here is in its early days. Already Columbia University scientists in New York have completed one project which suggests that the drug could open the door to metabolic diseases, including cancer, by affecting cellular immunity. The team found that white blood cells of cannabis users were 40 per cent less effective in fighting viruses than those of non-cannabis users. Any responsible Government would hold back in such circumstances; not least because the fad appears to be on the wane. To legalize it now might promote the drug just as its use was beginning to decline.
But if Mr. Jenkins wants to maintain his reputation as a reformer, there are useful amendments he could make to the law. Far too many people are still ending up in prison—over 100 in 1972—merely for using the drug. The last Conservative Government finally recognized a sharp distinction which must be made between users and pushers, and cut the maximum sentence for users from twelve months to six. But is prison necessary at all for users, particularly now that criminologists have demonstrated so starkly the damage that prison can cause? In the American state of Oregon, cannabis users are treated like traffic offenders, fined heavily but are never sent to prison. It is right that the big pushers, coming thousands of pounds from their trade, should receive heavy sentences. But the courts must also take note that there are two types of pushers: the professional and the amateur. The latter is often as much a user as seller in the drug sub-culture. A community service order, which would allow an amateur pusher a chance to contribute to society, seems a far more appropriate sentence than prison. The late Paul Samuelson once quipped that "women are just men with less money." As a father of six, he might have added something about women's role in the reproduction of the species. But his aphorism is about as good a one-sentence summary of classical feminism as you can get.
The first generations of successful women insisted on being judged by the same standards as men. They had nothing but contempt for the notion of special treatment for "the sisters", and instead insisted on getting ahead by dint of working harder and thinking smarter. Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the wimpish men around her. (There is a joke about her going out to dinner with her cabinet. "Steak or fish?" asks the waiter. "Steak, of course," she replies. "And for the vegetables?" "They'll have steak as well.") During America's most recent presidential election Hillary Clinton taunted Barack Obama with an advertisement that implied that he, unlike she, was not up to the challenge of answering the red phone at 3am.
Many pioneering businesswomen pride themselves on their toughness. Dong Mingzhu, the boss of Gree Electric Appliances, an air-conditioning giant, says flatly, "I never miss. I never admit mistakes and I am always correct." In the past three years her company has boosted shareholder returns by nearly 500%.
But some of today's most influential feminists contend that women will never fulfill their potential if they play by men's rules. According to Avivah Wittenberg-Cox and Alison Maitland, two of the most prominent exponents of this position, it is not enough to smash the glass ceiling. You need to audit the entire building for "gender asbestos"—in other words, root out the inherent sexism built into corporate structures and processes.
The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at "transformational" and "interactive" management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of "A Woman's Place is in the Boardroom", assert that women are "better lateral thinkers than men" and "more idealistic" into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.
What is more, the argument runs, these supposedly womanly qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters, according to this theory. Even before the financial disaster struck, the new feminists also claim, the best companies had been abandoning "patriarchal" hierarchies in favor of "collaboration" and "networking", skills in which women have an inherent advantage.
This argument may sound a little like the stuff of gender workshops in righteous universities. But it is gaining followers in powerful places. McKinsey, the most venerable of management consultancies, has published research arguing that women apply five of the nine "leadership behaviors" that lead to corporate success more frequently than men. Niall FitzGerald, the deputy chairman of Thomson Reuters and a former boss of Unilever, is as close as you can get to the heart of the corporate establishment. He proclaims, "Women have different ways of achieving results, and leadership qualities that are becoming more important as our organizations become less hierarchical and more loosely organized around matrix structures." Many companies are abandoning the old-fashioned commitment to treating everybody equally and instead becoming "gender adapted" and "gender bilingual"—in touch with the unique management wisdom of their female employees. A host of consultancies has sprung up to teach firms how to listen to women and exploit their special abilities.
The new feminists are right to be frustrated about the pace of women's progress in business. Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission calculated that, at the current rate of progress, it will take 60 years for women to gain equal representation on the boards of the FTSE 100. They are also right that old-fashioned feminism took too little account of women's role in raising children. But their arguments about the innate differences between men and women are sloppy and counterproductive.
People who bang on about innate differences should remember that variation within subgroups in the population is usually bigger than the variation between subgroups. Even if it can be established that, on average, women have a higher "emotional-intelligence quotient" than men, that says little about any specific woman. Judging people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups is both morally right and good for business.
Besides, many of the most successful women are to be found in hard-edged companies, rather than the touchy-feely organizations of the new feminist imagination: Areva (nuclear energy), AngloAmerican (mining), Archer Daniels Midland (agribusiness), DuPont (chemicals), Sunoco (oil) and Xerox (technology) all have female bosses. The Cranfield School of Management's Female FTSE 100 Index reveals that two of the industries with the best record for promoting women to their boards are banking and transport.
Women would be well advised to ignore the siren voices of the new feminism and listen to Ms Dong instead. Despite their frustration, the future looks bright. Women are now outperforming men markedly in school and university. It would be a grave mistake to abandon old-fashioned meritocracy just at the time when it is turning to women's advantage. ("Womenomics", by Schumpeter, from The Economist, Jan. 2nd, 2010) For more than 50 years, microbiologists in the U.S. and Europe have warned against using antibiotics to fatten up farm animals. The practice, they argue, threatens human health by turning farms into breeding grounds of drug-resistant bacteria. Farmers responded that restricting antibiotics in livestock would devastate the industry and significantly raise costs to consumers. We have empirical data that should resolve this debate. Since 1995, Denmark has enforced progressively tighter rules on the use of antibiotics in raising pigs, poultry and other livestock. In the process, it has shown that it's possible to protect human health without hurting farmers.
Farmers in many countries use antibiotics in two key ways: (1) at full strength to treat sick animals and (2) in low doses to fatten meat-producing livestock or to prevent veterinary illnesses. Although even the proper use of antibiotics can inadvertently lead to the spread of drug-resistant bacteria, the habit of using a low or "sub-therapeutic" dose is a formula for disaster: the treatment provides just enough antibiotic to kill some but not all bacteria. The germs that survive are typically those that happen to bear genetic mutations for resisting the antibiotic. They then reproduce and exchange genes with other microbial resisters. Because bacteria are found literally everywhere, resistant strains produced in animals eventually find their way into people as well. You could hardly design a better system for guaranteeing the spread of antibiotic resistance.
The data from multiple studies over the years support the conclusion that low doses of antibiotics in animals increase the number of drug-resistant microbes in both animals and people. As Joshua M. Scharfstein, a principal deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, put it, "You actually can trace the specific bacteria around and ... find that the resistant strains in humans match the resistant strains in the animals." And this science is what led Denmark to stop sub-therapeutic dosing of chickens, pigs and other farm animals.
Although the transition unfolded smoothly in the poultry industry, the average weight of pigs fell in the first year. But after Danish farmers started leaving piglets together with their mothers a few weeks longer to bolster their immune systems naturally, the animals' weights jumped back up, and the number of pigs per litter increased as well. The lesson is that improving animal husbandry—making sure that stalls and cages are properly cleaned and giving animals more room or time to mature—offsets the initial negative impact of limiting antibiotic use. Today Danish industry reports that productivity is higher than before. Meanwhile, reports of antibiotic resistance in Danish people are mixed, which shows—as if we needed reminding—that there are no quick fixes.
Of course, the way veterinary antibiotics are used is not the only cause of human drug-resistant infections. Careless use of the drugs in people also contributes to the problem. But agricultural use is still a major contributing factor. Every day brings new evidence that we are in danger of losing effective antibiotic protection against many of the most dangerous bacteria that cause human illness. The technical issues are solvable. Denmark's example proves that it is possible to cut antibiotic use on farms without triggering financial disaster. In fact, it might provide a competitive advantage. Stronger measures to deprive drug-resistant bacteria of their agricultural breeding grounds simply make scientific, economic and common sense. Most people would be impressed by the high quality of medicine available to most Americans. There is a lot of specialization, a great deal of attention to the individual, a vast amount of advanced technical equipment, and intense effort not to make mistakes because of the financial risk which doctors and hospitals must face in the courts if they handle things badly.
But the Americans are in a mess. The problem is the way in which health care is organized and financed. Contrary to public belief, it is not just a free competition system. To the private system has been joined a large public system, because private care was simply not looking after the less fortunate and the elderly.
But even with this huge public part of the system, which this year will eat up 84.5 billion dollars—more than 10 percent of the U.S. budget—large numbers of Americans are left out. These include about half the 11 million unemployed and those who fail to meet the strict limits on income fixed by a government trying to make savings where it can.
The basic problem, however, is that there is no central control over the health system. There is no limit to what doctors and hospitals charge for their services, other than what the public is able to pay. The number of doctors has shot up and prices have climbed. When faced with toothache, a sick child, or a heart attack, all the unfortunate person concerned can do is pay up.
Two-thirds of the population are covered by medical insurance. Doctors charge as much as they want knowing that the insurance company will pay the bill.
The medical profession has as a result become America's new big businessmen. The average income of doctors has now reached $100,000 a year. With such vast incomes the talk in the doctor's surgery is as likely to be about the doctor's latest financial deal, as about whether the minor operation he is recommending at, several thousand dollars is entirely necessary.
The rising cost of medicine in the U. S. A. is among the most worrying problem facing the country. In 1981 the country's health cost climbed 15.9 percent—about twice as fast as prices in general.
深色：已答题 浅色：未答题