The Politics of Risk (9/2/03)
by Dean Hartwell
What do politicians and mathematicians have in common?
Both not only make mistakes, but also they must decide ahead of time which type of mistake they will tolerate.
When mathematicians perform statistical analysis, they try to ensure that a data sample accurately reflects the general population from which it came.
For example, mathematicians conduct polls about politicians. They estimate the level of popularity each candidate possesses at a given time.
But they also give us a “margin of error.” This margin indicates the possibility that each candidate really has a higher or lesser portion of the popularity. The margin of error represents the amount of risk the mathematician takes in conducting the poll.
Politicians face the same problem when proposing social policy. For instance, if they cut welfare, they risk depriving people who truly need the benefits. On the other hand, if they expand welfare, they risk including people who do not need it (whom some conservatives have dubbed the “welfare queens”).
The same dilemma holds true on the policy of affirmative action, the recruitment of minorities to education or employment. Some have cut out affirmative action, like the state of California, or limit its use, as the University of Michigan has recently done. By doing so, they risk alienating the very victims of racial discrimination affirmative action proponents designed it to protect. On the other hand, by extending affirmative action to new groups, such as gays, one would increase the chances that people who do not need affirmative action would benefit from it.
Our legal system faces this challenge on a daily basis. When judges restrict the rights of defendants (for example, by allowing in evidence obtained by controversial means), they risk sending innocent people to prison. On the other hand, when judges uphold defendant rights, they risk letting guilty people go free.
By understanding these risks, we can better understand the different choices available to us. This risk hypothesis applies easily to the “War on Drugs.”
When the government criminalizes certain substances, it takes the chance that some innocent people will be arrested, and possibly convicted, for drug-related crimes. Advocates of legalization, on the other hand, would risk the greater availability, and possibly greater use, of drugs to people not currently involved.
Which possibility bothers you more?
Though an increase in drug use would be regrettable, we should consider a point made by Jacob Sullum in his new book, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2003). He states that many people who take drugs lead normal lives. Indeed, consider that Al Gore used marijuana, some of it allegedly during his time in Vietnam, as a journalist and as a candidate for Congress. The fact that Gore and countless others like him succeeded in life somehow escapes the “Just Say No” crowd.
On the other hand, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, our nation spends $20 billion a year enforcing drug laws, mostly to arrest those involved with drugs and to incarcerate many of them. We lose that money, which would be better spent elsewhere, like paying down our debt.
We lose the productivity of those whom we send to jail. But perhaps worst of all, we lose our sense of rationale in keeping alcohol and tobacco (which kill many each year) legal and in prohibiting marijuana, which has never killed anyone.
We must sometimes take risks. What we need from our leaders is a fresh look at the problem of drug use and an analysis of how current and proposed policies present risks and benefits to our society.