The lazy logic of banning sports supplements
Most of us are used to prohibitionists banning things that are thought of as being unhealthy. But the fact that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has decided to ban DMAA, an ingredient used in popular sports supplements, is a little more surprising. DMAA is used in pre-workout products, intended to give athletes greater focus and energy. Even the most ardent paternalists tend to be supporters of greater public fitness.
The most popular product containing this ingredient is Jack3d, a product aimed at weight training enthusiasts. Fears have risen about the active ingredient as it has been linked to increased blood pressure and heart rate. However, the quantity of DMAA in the recommended dose has been shown to elevate these by the same levels as 2-3 cups of coffee.
One death has been associated with DMAA, where in New Zealand a man took a dosage of some 30-60 times greater than the recommend dose given for formulated sports products. This was combined with an unknown quantity of alcohol. DMAA has been used in fitness products for years, with millions of doses taken by gym-goers. Meanwhile paracetamol was responsible for 507 accidental deaths from 1993-7 in England and Wales alone, and remains legal.
This is just the latest in a legal war on the fitness industry, but also a by-product of the impact that competitive sports has on the regulatory process. The supplement in question has been banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for some time. WADA’s Director of Legal has stated that WADA “continues to work closely with the MHRA.” This closeness puts non-professional users at risk.
Individuals are best placed to judge these risks for themselves. Relegating those things that regulators consider as bad for us to the black market restricts information on safe use, and could genuinely endanger users.
A system which has state officials tell us products are either ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’ reduces personal responsibility, and encourages complacency. Every decision carries risk, and consumers would be better protected by us being open about that than by treating them as infants.
For now, many users on message boards across the internet are discussing how to ensure they can pile up a “stash” of these products. It looks unlikely that rendering their supply illegal will stop people looking for an edge in fitness. Casting them into the domain of the black market will only help those who are willing and able to sell them illicitly.
Even drug prohibitionists should be embarrassed by Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens has been around a lot promoting his new book, Drugs: The War We Never Fought. I have not read his book, nor do I intend to – unless it is significantly better than the extracts he has published from it, I would rather not waste my time. Hitchens’s thesis is that it is misleading to talk about a ‘war on drugs’ in the British context.
This is actually a fair point. The War on Drugs is an American phenomenon, and British drugs prohibition has, indeed, been a lot less heavy-handed than America’s. Not that that would be difficult. Even still, it's quite an overstatement to say that there is a 'de facto decriminalization' of drugs in Britain. There are over 10,000 people in jail in the UK for specific drugs offences, and many more for drugs-related offences.
This is just about all that Hitchens has right. His article for the Mail on Sunday this weekend was a study in the use of logical fallacies, and he is remarkably inconsistent in his reasoning.
Using false generalizations and question-begging, Hitchens concentrated on cannabis, “one of the most dangerous drugs known to man”. But his argument – that cannabis is much more dangerous than is commonly believed – was staggeringly weak. His justification for this premise in full:
“The cannabis user can cause terrible distress to others. He could wreck his life and the lives of his friends and close family through irreversible mental illness. He could destroy his good prospects. Its use by teenagers is associated with under-achievement in school. Many who fail in school go on to fail in life, and so become an unquenchable grief to those who love them, and a costly burden to us all.
“Campaigners for cannabis legalisation often claim that the drug, especially in comparison with alcohol, promotes peaceful behaviour. I am unconvinced by this broad claim, partly because of the frequent newspaper accounts of violent acts by people who are known cannabis users. . . .
“There are also several cases, which I have for the most part set aside, of killings by mentally ill people who have been taking cannabis.
“It is not possible to say whether they were ill in the first place because of cannabis, or whether they were already ill for some other reason, and cannabis has made their problems worse.”
That’s it. No survey data, no medical evidence – nothing, except some specious anecdotes and flimsy correlations. Contrast this with actual, you know, medical research which says, basically, that it’s not good for you, but you could do worse. There isn’t a clear link between cannabis use and violence to others. The risks of psychosis are slim. And Peter Hitchens may be surprised to learn that there have been several cases of killings by mentally ill people who have not been taking cannabis as well.
Like many other hobbies, cannabis is a potentially harmful thing to use. There are troubling studies that suggest a link between suicide and cannabis use (and studies that do not find such a link), but Hitchens does not cite them.
Of course, all of this is beside the point. As in all scientific questions, the jury is out, and it is absurd to think that a few studies should be able to determine how other people are allowed to live. As an adult, I should be able to stick whatever I damn well like into my body. Provided that I am aware of the risks, nobody is better placed to make my personal cost/benefit calculation for any given action. Nevertheless, it is staggering to see how weak the premises of Hitchens's argument are.
There seems to be some sort of convention that people criticising Hitchens must first praise his consistency and intellect. I don’t know why; he is not an interesting writer or a profound thinker. He huffs and puffs, and rarely writes well enough to justify his affectations.
He is also considerably less consistent than he might appear. He follows his authoritarianism to its next logical step – he wants alcohol banned as well as cannabis, though he does try to wriggle out of that by saying that “alcohol is too well-established here for such measures to work” – but what about other dangerous hobbies, like horse-riding (worse than ecstasy), boxing, rugby, or sky-diving? What about sex with people in high STD risk groups? What about driving to work instead of getting the train (twelve times less lethal than driving)?
Hitchens is silent about all of these things. He might simply be inconsistent. He might be a coward who is only prepared to attack things that are already illegal or, in the case of alcohol, under assault by the health lobby. He might believe that the pleasure that some people take from driving is more important than the pleasure that some people take from using cocaine. If he does, then he is simply advocating for a law based on Peter Hitchens’s own preferences, and is certainly not a serious thinker.
There are many good reasons not to use drugs, and there are a few good reasons not to legalize drugs. Peter Hitchens has given none of these. As he has never tried drugs himself, he even manages to undermine the best argument against taking drugs – that they turn you into a pompous, incoherent bore. Hitchens's paper-thin arguments should be mocked and ignored, and nothing more.
Update: Apparently Hitchens has admitted trying 'illegal drugs'. Why hasn't he handed himself into the authorities?
Prohibition returns
Contrary to some excitable headlines, Tasmania has not banned the sale of cigarettes to anyone born in the 21st century. Such a move has been proposed, but it is most unlikely that the Australian state’s Lower House will allow it to become law. Nevertheless, it is another sign that anti-smoking campaigners are ready to come out of the closet and admit that they are prohibitionists. For decades, any suggestion that advocates for a ‘smoke-free world’ secretly wanted to criminalise the sale of tobacco were met with denial and protestation. This was not a witch-hunt against smokers, they said, only a campaign for better education, or restricting advertising, or protecting bar-staff, or saving the children.
The Tasmanian ruse, which was first mooted in Singapore, retains a ‘think-of-the-children’ element by forbidding those born after the year 2000 from purchasing tobacco products. Since the eldest of these people are currently twelve years old, this is not immediately controversial, but in a few years time it will mean prohibition for the first wave of adult consumers. This crucial fact seemed to escape some Tasmanians, like the gentleman who told ABC News that the proposal "definitely has my support mate because I believe that children shouldn't be smoking." This sentiment is, of course, besides the point. The real question is whether future generations should be treated like children forevermore; the Peter Pans of tobacco control.
Illegal everything
I'm away in Ireland at the moment, but I enjoyed watching this video last night and thought readers of the blog might too. It's a surprising look into the American regulatory state, with plenty of points that will be (sadly) familiar to viewers on this side of the Atlantic as well. (Quite a few of the points are also rather surprising to see on Fox News — in a funny way it's quite a subversive film.)
In praise of packaging
The proposal to require 'plain' packaging for tobacco products has now completed its consultations. The ASI submitted evidence against plain packaging, and we published Chris Snowdon's report on the subject.
The case for plain packaging is weak since it has not been tried anywhere. Proponents claim that glitzy packaging leads people to take up smoking, whereas the tobacco companies say it is about promoting their brands over others. Supporters cite tests in which subjects said they felt 'negative' about cigarettes in plain packs. I myself would feel pretty negative about having to look at other people's packs showing tumours and corpses.
Counterfeiting and smuggling would be easier with plain packaging, reducing tax revenues. Already one cigarette in nine is smuggled or fake. The civil liberties issue makes a strong case against plain packaging. Although proponents tell us that it will only apply to tobacco products, activists in Australia, which took the lead in plain packaging laws, are now campaigning for graphic warnings on alcohol and for what they deem to be 'junk' food to be sold in generic packaging.
Packaging can influence choice of brand by projecting an image that users want to identify with. The feelings that go with a product are part of the intangible value that it adds. Malt whisky in India is seen as an 'aspirational' product associated with success and ambition. Young Indians enjoy feeling part of that world, in addition to enjoying the whisky itself. Similarly tobacco companies like to project an image for their brands. Friends of mine who started Regius Cigars wanted to convey an image of top quality, and designed distinctive packaging in black and gold. Plain packaging would require them to forego the distinctive imagery that marks out their brand and gives it class.
I applaud the New World vintners for the innovative and bold wine labels they have adopted. They brighten up the table, and I doubt they make people drink more wine. I do think that putting disgusting pictures on them would make people 'negative' toward them, however.
It would be a duller world if everything activists thought bad for us had to be sold in plain packaging. It would be less informative, and would deny us the intangible pleasures of associating with images and lifestyles we aspire to be part of. It would be a drabber world and one considerably less free.
Get the Olympic rulebook out of our private lives and legalize steroids
We’ve seen quite a few sporting upsets at the London 2012 games so far. But what remains predictable are disqualifications for drug use, with an Albanian weightlifter and Uzbekistani gymnast being banned and some Chinese swimmers facing allegations of doping.
The reasons for cheating are clear. Performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) offer improved performance and detection is far from certain. A constant arms race between drug developers and those who test for them has led to a situation where even the World Anti-Doping Agency Director-General himself has confessed that they are catching “the dopey dopers, but not the sophisticated ones.”
Only users who poorly time their intake get caught, while those on more intelligent cycles can avoid detection at the games themselves. Simultaneously, the rules on what is allowed constantly change to account for new substances. At different times caffeine and Vitamin D have been prohibited. Bizarrely, blood doping is now banned while training at high altitude to achieve the same effects is permitted.
Many have responded by asking for greater international cooperation in cracking down on the drugs trade. There are alternatives, however. The Chairman of the IOC takes the view that a more stringent out-of-competition testing system, with a greater use of the “whereabouts” policy, would improve detection.
Further restrictions on PED markets will not just affect performance athletes, though. The vast majority of users do so recreationally for aesthetic reasons. Growth in users has been dramatic in the past few years, particularly in poorer areas such as the Welsh valleys, where 60% of recycled hypodermic needles are from steroid use, not heroin use.
These users do not have the professional team that Olympians do, procuring drugs and ensuring their quality. As with mood-altering drugs, steroids are often cut with other substances, such as baby oil. The legal status of these drugs also means that users are often restricted to purchasing products developed for bulking up cows or the treatment of injured horses. Legalising supply would ensure that fitness enthusiasts could rely on brand strength for the quality of their drugs as they can do with legally available supplements now.
Many of the health complications that arise as a result of use can be put down to a poor circulation of information. Many learn how to use steroids by word of mouth or from internet forums. Moves to legalise the use of drugs would help to open the world of PEDs, so that those who do choose to use them can educate themselves to do so as safely as possible.
Steroid use is swelling, and whatever happens in the world of professional athletes, the rules of their games should not affect the lives of those outside them. We should ignore calls for tighter controls (especially when those who decide what is permissible change their definitions so often) as these clearly have not stopped the use of steroids skyrocketing in recent years. Rather, we should push for legalisation of all performance enhancing drugs so that those who are more vulnerable can be safer in pursuing their fitness goals.
Going 4 silliness
The twitterati are out in force again this week, this time angry at G4S and their failure to secure enough staff for the Olympics. You’ll no doubt be familiar with the scandal. You don’t have to look far to find someone putting forward the argument that this is a textbook example of why we shouldn’t outsource state services.
Certainly G4S has made mistakes, yet I’m not convinced by the public outcry against outsourcing. Think of Bastiat’s That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen. We see the G4S failure, but we don’t see what would have happened had the state been tasked with Olympic security.
Clearly, neither the state nor the private sector are perfect. Tasking either with Olympic security had risks that something would go wrong. The state seems to have a nasty habit of making mistakes – data is constantly leaked or goes missing, the Home Office seems incapable of running an immigration desk, not to mention the quality of state healthcare and education provision lagging far behind their private counterparts. The list goes on. To me it seems that the rational thing to do when deciding who should provide services is to go with the least risky option. To say that I’m not convinced that this option is the state would be an understatement.
Yet the popular narrative emerging from the G4S scandal is that we should trust more service provision to the state. I can’t help but think had we done that with Olympic security, the state would have had as just a difficult time securing staff, if not more.
And what would have happened had the state been in charge, and yet the troops still had to be called in? A public outcry against state provision? A wave of commentary saying how this is a textbook example of why we should outsource?
No. Of course not. It would have been a minor scandal at best. Probably not even serious enough to warrant the loss of a ministerial job, yet there are calls for Nick Buckles, head of G4S, to stand down. We would shrug off state failure as though it were the norm.
We hold the private sector to a far higher standard than we do the state. Holding those who provide public services to account is hardly a bad thing, but if we don’t demand the same high quality from the state as we do from the private sector, our public services will be doomed to mediocrity.
Olympic arrogance
For some weeks transport within London has been dislocated and delayed by road closures as Olympic venues are prepared. Soon now whole lanes will be closed off to ordinary drivers so that these 'Games Lanes' can whisk Olympic officials around in their limousines without hindrance from other motorists. Any cyclist entering one of these lanes faces a fixed £130 penalty, and motorists have been advised to avoid London altogether during the Olympics.
My use of the word 'Olympic' risks an enforcement lawsuit from the committee 'protecting' the trademark. Also banned are words and phrases made up of terms that might refer to the Games, including London, 2012, games, medals, gold, silver and many more. Bullion dealers should be careful when they talk about their work.
The Spectator tells of a butcher in Weymouth banned for arranging a display of sausages like the 5 Olympic rings, and of a florist in Stoke-on-Trent ordered to remove similarly arranged paper tissues in her window. Only Macdonald's chips will allowed at the Olympic stadium; others are banned.
There is a no fly zone around London, and some homeowners have to put up with anti-aircraft missile batteries installed at the top of their apartment blocks. Residential areas will have to put up with the noise of commercial garbage being collected nearby between 1.0 and 4.0 am during the games.
There are queues of several hours sometimes for air passengers arriving at Heathrow, even before the games have begun. The cost of all this long exceeded its planned budget, and is now reckoned to top £12bn, though if the cost of public transport upgrades is included, even that figure doubles.
And for what? So that the "international sporting community" can have a good time at the expense of the locals? So that Olympic officials can congratulate themselves on the way the locals were whipped into line to minimize any inconvenience they faced?
Welcome to the true spirit of the Olympics. Its rings stand for corporatism, cronyism, extravagance, bullying and arrogance. The sensible course is to be as far from it as I can be until it's all over.
Memo to The Guardian: could you make your minds up please?
Assuming, of course, that there actually is an intelligence somewhere in the Guardian that has a mind that can be made up, could they try and give it a go on this when we all get to die thing?
But the next campaign for better public health is in a different league. Alcohol and obesity – what we eat and how much we drink – these are the stuff of our very souls.
You see, I can just about get the anti-smoking thing: of course the science being used is nonsensical hysteria and even if it weren't the correct solution is to allow patrons to decide whether to patronise smoking or non-smoking establishments. But it is at least theoretically possible that there is an externality here that needs to be dealt with. There just isn't with food or alcohol.
I can also see, and disagree with, the idea that people should be able to get a doctor to kill them if they want to die. I agree that everyone has the right to commit suicide if they want to die though. But I simply cannot understand your, opposite, reasoning.
Which is, as far as I can see, that people have a right to die when they want to and how they want to but only if you approve of that method? It's OK if they die of doctors, indeed the law must be changed to allow that, but it's not alright if they die of doughnuts and the law must be changed to ban that? Even if both are the choice of the person who has to do the dying?
It's not just that this doesn't sound very logical, it's that it sounds extraordinarily illiberal.
Either people should be allowed to choose the method of their death or not. And if the answer is that they should then I cannot see any reason at all why it should be righteous that they can do so at the wrong end of an injection but not through their own free ingestion of booze, baccy and burgers.
So I do wish you would make up your mind over this: should the State aid people in killing themselves or ban it?
Or are we using one of those irregular verbs: I believe liberal is people get to do what they want, you belive liberal is that people get to do what you want?
Do we need government?
After Tim Evans's great speech on private policing at our Next Generation event on Wednesday, I came across the video above, which goes into more detail than Tim had time for. Ed Stringham argues that government might not be necessary even for the "night watchman" roles that most assume it is required to play. Is government the only agency that can provide law enforcement? Stringham says "no", lucidly and engagingly.
I anticipate some negative reactions to my posting this video. Even many liberals and "minarchist" libertarians find anarcho-capitalist ideas frustratingly utopian and a distraction from the challenges of the real world. I can sympathise, but I think it's also important to take nothing the state does for granted. I could be (and, honestly, I probably am) persuaded that we need some kind of Leviathan state to minimise violence, but I don't see why we should assume that.