Candorville - 1.22.2007

In subsequent Candorville strips, we find out that Clyde is actually referring to something completely different, but this strip is still obviously setup to imply that he is talking about selling drugs. I think most people would agree that Lemont is correct. Illegal drugs hurt communities and the people in them. Drug dealers exploit addicted users, and bring in a tidy sum at the same time.

The topic I’d like to discuss today is the idea of legalizing drugs. I’m not suggesting that this would be a good idea. I’d just like to discuss the idea. I think that some very positive changes would come from it, but also some very negative changes. The question is whether or not the good would outweigh the bad.

Whenever a product that there is a demand for is made illegal, the sale of said product becomes much more profitable. With the suppliers operating outside the law, there is a risk-factor built into the price, and fewer suppliers to compete with. Gangs are able to make big money by running and selling drugs.
If all illegal narcotics were legalized, it would instantly remove almost all need for an illegal drug trade. When alcohol prohibition was repealed, the bootleggers’ trade dried up almost immediately. Why buy an expensive product whose origins are unknown when you can get it cheaper and from a more trustworthy source?

A huge portion of the men and women in US jails are from drug-related crimes. Stealing to pay for drugs, killing to protect a gang’s drug-selling territory, possession of drugs, etc. Many crimes are directly or indirectly related to the prohibition of narcotics. If the prohibition was lifted, the rate of these crimes would certainly decrease.

Now let’s look at the negative. The number of people taking drugs would most likely increase, possibly causing social issues. Also, with drugs being cheaper than they are currently, the amount of drugs that the average user takes would probably increase as well. In fact, addicted users might spend just as much money on drugs as they do now, but take three times as much. Overdose deaths would probably increase as a result of legalization.
Another major issue would be how the drugs were regulated. Legal drugs are currently heavily regulated. Currently illegal drugs would certainly be regulated in a similar way. Who would have the right to create/sell the drugs? Would the drugs end up costing less than they currently do?

What so you think? Is there an easy solution? Is everything fine the way it is now? If you could change the laws/processes regarding currently illegal narcotics, what would you do?

They’ll Do It Every Time - 1.20.2007

This strip is a caricature of exactly how gambling laws work in most states. State-run lotteries are completely legal, and sanctioned by the government. Why then, are all other types of gambling outlawed?
Politicians’ answer: Because gambling addiction is a serious problem. It’s my job to save the people from themselves. Gambling is an evil, evil monster, and deserves to be outlawed in this state.

There are two obvious problems with this argument. The first is the obvious hypocritical nature of that type of answer. If gambling is so evil, why are state-sponsored lotteries legal? Because they benefit the government (and as such, presumably the common good)? So apparently, gambling addiction is worrisome if private individuals (and other winning gamblers) reap the windfall, but not if the state gets the profits to use as they see fit.

The second part of this whole thing is the idea that Americans need to be protected from themselves. Gambling can be addictive to a small percentage of people. So can alcohol, cigarettes, sex, food, and a number of other very legal things. Banning something because it causes a problem for a small number of people is simply ridiculous.

Since the house almost always has an edge in casino-gambling, in the long run, most gamblers will end up losing money. Everyone is aware of this, yet casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and on Indian reservations never seem to have a problem filling up their casinos. It’s just possible that people are aware of the fact that gambling is a losing proposition, but they simply don’t care because they’re having fun.

A night out at the ballpark is a money-losing endeavor. You spend money on tickets, overpriced hot dogs, beer, and those funny foam hands. When it’s all over, you have $100 less than you did that morning, but you don’t mind, because you had a good time. Many people seek out gambling for a similar purpose. It’s exciting, it’s fun, and if you get lucky, you’ll come home with more money than you started with. If not, you still had a good time. How is this a bad thing?

Can anyone provide me with a valid reason why gambling is illegal in most states? It simply doesn’t make sense why an activity that so many people enjoy would be outlawed at the behest of the government.

Comments?

Curtis - 1.20.2007

I have to assume that in the last panel here, Curtis’ Mom just doesn’t feel like getting into an hour-long discussion with her son, and that’s why she claims not to know. The long answer may be a bit complicated, but the short answer is very simple:

• Most people are apathetic, and don’t care about a specific issue until it’s negative effects are felt in a big way close to home.
• Politicians are ridiculous opportunists, and will do whatever it takes to make it look like they are serving their people’s needs. The best way to do this is to lead the charge on whatever the hot issue is, and milk it to death before the public stops caring about it. They’re just looking for a parade to jump in front of, so they can claim they had been leading it all along.

“It’s about time!”, Curtis’ Mom exclaims. I wonder if she ever brought the issue of speeding on Ogden Avenue up in front of the city council or wrote a letter to her local politician. Like most of us (including me), she probably noticed the problem, but was too apathetic to try and do anything about it.

It’s really just as well, though, because if she had made a stink about it, the government was likely to ignore her. It’s hard to blame them. If they approved taxpayer funds for the speed bumps, their political opponents would accuse them of wasting tax dollars in the next campaign. The local citizens would think “That’s right! I paid for those speed bumps, and all they do is annoy me when I’m driving. I’ll vote for the other guy.” Of course, that’s assuming they’ll even vote at all.

It isn’t until something major happens that most of the citizens will start to care about the problem and the only political risk for Joe Councilman is if he looks like he’s not doing anything about it. The problem now is that whatever measures are taken are often an overreaction, and are almost always not the best solution.

Cars are speeding on Ogden Avenue. What’s the best way to solve this problem? We could post traffic cops there more often to give big tickets. That would cut down on speeding. Maybe a traffic light or stop sign at the intersection where children cross. What about some traffic calming measures that reduce vehicle’s speed without requiring them to come to a near-stop every 50 feet. There are probably several potential solutions, but only one is so obvious that everyone will realize that the politicians are working hard for the children… Speed bumps!

Two years from now, the public will have resumed their apathy, and be cursing the speed bumps every time they drive down Ogden Avenue. The politicians will have been reelected, and have moved on to some other now-pressing issue like teen smoking or something, and the cycle will continue indefinitely. Every time something bad hits close to home, the people will clamor for more laws and regulations, the politicians will try their best to look like they’re solving the problem, the real issues won’t be addressed at all, and we’ll all suffer through even more bureaucracy and red tape. It’s the way of the world.

Comments?

Doonesbury - 1.14.2007

This is a funny Doonesbury today, but there are a few things that I take some issue with, especially in the 5th panel.

My primary beef is with the idea that “both” sides of an issue should be respected. It’s very popular lately to act as though every issue (scientific or otherwise) has two sides: a “conservative” side and a “liberal” side, a “right” side and a “wrong” side, a “bad” side and a “good” side. Some may say I’m reading too much into this, but I really don’t think I am. The idea that complex issues (like many of those named in panels six and seven) have only two sides is a very “political” way of viewing it, and a very incorrect way of looking at things.

This type of thinking often simplifies complex issues into two specific sides, both of which often have major flaws. Worst of all, it keeps people from actually thinking critically about an issue, allowing them to blindly go along with one “side”, usually dependent on their political leaning.

It’s ironic that the 3rd panel of this comic shows the student claiming that the evidence doesn’t line up with his beliefs. Dividing issues into two sides makes it easy to ignore all evidence that doesn’t support your claim, and is a primary reason for the huge drop in support for the war in Iraq over the past four years. Major evidence against the presence of WMDs existed in 2002 and 2003, and most truly objective analysts predicted at least five years of US occupation, but in the hysteria and desire for revenge left over from 9/11, most decided to ignore any evidence that went against their predetermined belief that Iraq was supporting terrorists and should be invaded.

The entire issue was neatly divided into two sides by the American public:

• Those who were against terrorists and loved America
• The “No Blood for Oil” crowd who hated George Bush and America and think the war is only about money.

With these being the two perceived “sides”, it’s no wonder that most of America fell into the first category. Now, four years later, everyone absolves themselves of blame because “they were lied to”. This is true to an extent, but the information we have now was available then. It’s very easy to blame someone else for misleading you, but anyone who bothered to look past the headlines would have seen huge amounts of evidence that there were no WMDs, obvious reasons to believe that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would never work together for any reason, and easily predictable outcomes that would surely come from this type of military action.

I’ve gone off on sort of a tangent here, so I’ll digress. I may seem a little overly passionate about something that seems trivial, but I really think that a lot of the ridiculousness in American government today stems from every issue being divided into two sides, relieving everyone of the need to think critically about anything. A large percentage of people just pick the side that their favorite politician/radio personality/best friend supports, and in the end, we all end up fighting over trivial issues while the important issues go completely unnoticed. If I was more of a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the politicians are causing this to happen on purpose, but unfortunately, I think we’re just doing it to ourselves.

I’ve written far more than I set out to write and covered far more topics that I intended, so I’ll end this post here. Please write comments, and let’s discuss.

Hi, my name is Robert Dickson, and I’m the author of Comic Strip Politics.

As long as I can remember, I’ve read every comic on the funny page, including the soap opera strips, the strips that haven’t been funny since the Reagan administration and even the strips that rarely make any sense at all.

The internet has opened me up to dozens of strips I had never even heard of, and hundreds of people who share my interest in reading comic strips and making fun of them.

Although, there have always been political comic strips, it seems that there are an increasing number of regular “funnies” with political messages. As I mentioned earlier, most political messages (purposely or not) include lies and half-truths, and comics are no different. Usually, comics present one side of a political issue to setup a joke, and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. I often find myself laughing at politically-themed comic strips, whether I agree with the strip’s underlying point or not, and that’s what the whole point of the strip is; to make people laugh. But with my ever-present desire to see all sides of an issue, I often find myself wishing that there was some place to actually discuss the issue brought up in the strip, and that’s sort of what this blog is about.

Despite the fact that I enjoy discussing and writing about political ideas, I actually have no specific political affiliation at all. In general, I dislike nearly everything about politics and politicians, mostly because politics seems to have become nothing more than stretching the truth for personal gain and scaring the public. Unfortunately, this trend has expanded far beyond the realm of politics and elections and has come to envelope our whole society, including areas such as science, economics and religion.

I’m no journalist or political pundit. I’m just a guy who enjoys exploring issues from every possible angle, trying to understand where each person is coming from, even if I don’t agree. I feel like I’m pretty good at being objective, but I realize it’s not possible to be completely objective, since our life experiences shape us all differently. Nevertheless, I’ll try my best to not take sides on an issue, but to try to explore it from every angle. I realize this will put me at odds with nearly everyone, and I am prepared for the onslaught of disagreement. I welcome any comments you might have, although I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t write anything to me that you wouldn’t say to me in person or in front of your mother

Often times, comics are funny because they reflect our lives, or those of people we know. Scott Adams has said that he receives emails every day telling him that a recent Dilbert strip was exactly like what happened in their office last year. I’d like to use the comics as a starting point for real objective discussion, and I think it will be a lot of fun.

I have no desire to promote a specific political party or ideology. There are far more “liberal” comic strips than “conservative” comic strips (though both do exist), so it may seem that I’m taking issue with one party’s position more often than another. But stupidity knows no political party, and I feel confident that I can find narrow-minded views everywhere, from Doonesbury to Mallard Fillmore, and I promise I will hold nothing back when discussing any political nonsense no matter what political party (if any) is being praised or condemned.

So that’s that. I look forward to your feedback.

Robert