WWPD? Pat Paulsen on Guns

February 1, 2013, 8:20 a.m.

Comedy and Concerns from Pat Paulsen's Writer
Quick Internal Links to Content
Introduction/Background: Mason Williams, Smothers Brothers, and Pat Paulsen

Mason Williams, "Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges"

Mason Williams and Nicholas Johnson Offer Gun Violence Solutions

Remember the wrist bands, "WWJD," for "What would Jesus Do"?

They came to mind the other day as I was thinking about what we might succeed in accomplishing as we try to reduce the 30,000 annual suicides and homicides involving firearms. With President Obama's inaugural address still echoing in my brain, my thoughts drifted back to less well-known presidential candidates during my lifetime, and the question, "What would Pat Paulsen do?" [Photo/poster credit: "Pat Paulsen for President."]

Because I had run into a grocery store clerk in Galveston the week before who had no memory of the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" (he was also unaware of which grocery aisle contained the store's offering of bread), it occurs to me that perhaps you, too, would appreciate a little background.

You remember "the Sixties," right? No? OK. Well, the 1960s and early 1970s were times of great creativity and upheaval in America. We had more "movements" then than . . . you get the idea. Large numbers of citizens were involved in protesting, demanding, and often obtaining their rights and goals regarding African-Americans' civil rights, women's rights, and bringing a halt to the Viet Nam War. Whether life imitates art, or the reverse, it was also a time of innovation in graphic art, music, literature, drama -- and television programming.

Given that my term as an FCC commissioner ran from 1966 through 1973, my "15 minutes of fame" pretty much overlapped these years, and caused me to be involved in one way or another with many of the passions of these times -- including one of those innovative TV programs, the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," one of CBS' most popular shows throughout the 1966-68 seasons.

There were conflicts between the show, primarily Tom Smothers, and the CBS' "censors," primarily involving politically edgy content. Ultimately, CBS' Chair Bill Paley ordered the cancellation of the program in April 1969. A film depicts those controversies, "Smothered: The Censorship Struggles of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," in which I play a bit part, and a summary of which is presented, ironically, on "The Paley Center for Media" Web site.

I believe it was during that time frame Tom Smothers flew to Washington and visited with me in my FCC office. My memory is that he said CBS was telling him that he was violating National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and FCC requirements.

As Mason Williams recalls, I explained to Tommy, and later to Mason, that the NAB Code (NAB "Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters) was a 1951 set of ethical standards, with something almost literally a copy of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, seldom if ever taken seriously (and subsequently abandoned by the NAB in 1983, following pressure from members), with no specified sanctions for violation.

I also reassured him that so far as I knew, there would be no commissioners or staff, many of whom (including myself) were fans of the show, who would be able to find anything in the show that was forbidden by the Communications Act of 1934, or FCC regulations.

That conversation ultimately led to my occasionally visiting the set and meeting a number of those involved with the program. Among them, I spent the most time with Mason Williams, Emmy-award-winning head writer, and composer of "Classical Gas" -- one of the most played pieces in the history of American music. [Photo of Tom Smothers, Mason Williams, Dick Smothers. Photo credit: MasonWilliams-online.com]

If you'd like to know more about this historic and influential program and its place in American television history, here are some links: The Smothers Brothers' Web page; "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," wikipedia.org; "Smothers Brothers," wikipedia.org; Mason Williams' Web page; and "Mason Williams," (including discography), wikipedia.org.

All of which, at long last, brings us to Pat Paulsen and the Pat Paulsen for President campaign, and ultimately Paulsen's proposals for dealing with gun violence. See, e.g., "Pat Paulsen for President," and "Pat Paulsen," wikipedia.org. Tom Smothers has said that Pat Paulsen "was the most important comedic talent I’ve met in my life.” [Photo credit: "Pat Paulsen for President," and other sources.]

There are a couple of videos that will give you a better sense of what that part of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was all about than I can recreate in words. But to give you a start, some early video manipulation enabled the candidate to, literally, talk out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. One of his campaign events involved climbing the highest mountain in Kansas with the governor. Another was, as I recall, an 89-cent fund raising bean dinner in Los Angeles -- with Carl Reiner acting as master of ceremonies. You get the idea. [Photo/poster credit: Mason Williams.]







Here are the videos:


This one is narrated by Henry Fonda:


This next one is a memorial tribute (Paulsen lived 1927-97), with "Classical Gas" as the soundtrack, Pat Paulsen's rendition of "God Bless America" as a close, and a couple of brief bits from the prior video:



As the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour head writer, it fell to Mason Williams to write material for Pat Paulsen as well. So who better to ask than Mason Williams how Pat Paulsen might go about controlling gun violence.

As it turns out, although Pat Paulsen has not been with us in a temporal sense since 1997, Mason Williams is still able to channel Paulsen's thoughts from the great beyond. Here, then, is . . . ____________________
Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges
by Mason Williams

[Photo credit: Wikipedia.org.] Solving the gun control issue, less paper work & reduced pressure on hospital emergency rooms

“I’d pass a law that states that from here on, anyone who wants to buy a gun has to be willing to be shot with it. It would be a little like the “golden rule” in reverse: “Do unto yourself what you might do unto others.” In this case, I’d probably call it the “lead rule”. This would solve several aspects of our gun control problems.

1. It would probably get rid of anyone wanting to own ten guns.

2. You wouldn’t need a permit, you’d have the scar from the bullet-wound. No need for a permit means less bureaucracy and therefore less paperwork. This would save a lot of time & money.

3. Local gun shows would probably have to go out of business. You wouldn’t want to buy a gun from some guy who would take you out behind the building and shoot you with it before he sold it to you. You would want go to a reputable dealer who’s a good shot, a marksman.

4. As to the part of the body where you would be shot, that would of course be your decision. This is, after all, a free country.

Pat is asking Congress to act quickly and pass this proposal into law, not just to save lives, but in order to clear the decks for his other proposals. He is concerned about the indication a number of public prosecutors are planning on bringing an "aiding and abetting" criminal behavior case against the National Rifle Association. The theory of the case is that the NRA's efforts to increase the sales of their members who are gun manufacturers and gun show owners, while weakening such regulations as exist, and stonewalling efforts to staff the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have the effect of aiding and abetting the crimes of those who use guns in the course of robberies or as the preferred instrument for homicides. Candidate Paulsen is concerned that the focus on these protracted and contentious criminal prosecutions, and their attendant publicity and public participation, will detract from what he considers essential legislation for the American people.

Here are some of his other proposals.

Education vs. The escalating cost of putting young people in prison. We need to spend more money and effort to provide a better education for our young people. A great many of today’s high school student’s drop out early only to begin a life of crime. We need to convince kids that if they stay in school and get smarter they’ll be less likely to get caught. This obviously means fewer kids going to prison. This will take a lot of pressure off of the costs of running our prisons.

The smarter kid is a fiscally responsible crook for us all! Who knows, they could even go on to have a career on Wall Street.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. It's the Republicans who are, for the most part, anti-abortionists. They have no qualms about butting into your personal life, but they do have the basic philosophy of staying out of private business affairs.

Therefore, I’d recommend passing a law to have all of the women in America become corporations. This way, if the hypothetical Jane Doe Corporation got pregnant & decided to “downsize” it would be strictly her “business,” and the Republicans, being honor-bound to abide by their tradition of staying out of people’s business affairs, would have to make her business decision none of their business.

Given the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United (that turned all corporations into persons), although the women would no longer be able to rely on the Nineteenth Amendment for their voting rights, they could simply vote as corporations.

And here’s the “two-fer,” since there are approximately 150,000,000 women in the United States, this would provide an enormous business opportunity for the lawyers of America.

Drugs and Social Security. I’d solve our nation’s drug problems & our Social Security problems in one fell swoop.

I’d propose that only Senior Citizens deal illicit drugs! (They could certainly use the money!) Think of the big load this would take off of the Social Security Reserves.

They’d probably even be willing to report their income and pay taxes on it!

It would also probably stop much of the violence associated with drug dealing. Who’s going to blow away somebody’s grandmother? Sure, there might be a walker-by-swatting with a handbag once in a while, but I’m sure the cops could handle it. I also think that older, wiser people would be more apt to show a little concern for their clients: “Now sonny boy, don’t take too many of these at once!” Or, “No downers with alcohol.” “These together will kill you.”

So there’s an extra, additional bonus here! The users won’t overdose and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune in treatment and rehabilitation. In this case you get three solutions for the price of one!

# # #
There you have it, folks. Mason Williams channeling Pat Paulsen from the great beyond, bringing solutions to a political Washington seemingly mired in mud, members of Congress accorded less respect by the American people than the regard they have for cockroaches and communists. We are desperately in need of the leadership only Pat Paulsen could provide.

Now . . .

But seriously, folks . . .
Nick: Mason, why do you think people want assault rifles?

Mason: Don't you see? You can't paint everyone with the same brush, but some of them act like fathers who are afraid their daughters will end up dating someone who is like they were. They know they are out there! They want to be able to protect themselves from people who have assault rifles. In other words, they want to be able to protect themselves from people who think like they do. If nobody, including them, had assault rifles, they wouldn't need to protect themselves from themselves. [Photo credit: Mason Williams.]


Nick: OK, good point. What else?

Mason: I think we ought to encourage and enlist the NRA members to help police themselves.

Nick: Are you serious? How is that going to work?

Mason: The goal would be to encourage the NRA to help solve gun violence problems rather than resisting all solutions. Not that they should go out hunting for criminals -- no good guys with guns going after bad guys with guns -- but agreeing to intensified restrictions that are inconvenient to all when they're applied.

Nick: Lots of luck with that one.

Mason: No; listen now. Suppose in a town like Butte, Montana, there are very few, if any, firearm suicides and homicides. Why should the gun owners in Butte be inconvenienced with regulations and prohibitions on gun ownership? My guess is that most of the congressional opposition to gun controls come from communities, counties, and states like that. Eliminate that opposition, focus the regulations on localities where they are needed, make sense, and could save lives, and the whole effort becomes more politically possible.

The NRA claims to be willing to back sensible regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopathic killers. Giving the NRA a base on balls in that 75 percent or more of geographic America where responsible gun owners outnumber the armed criminals and psychopaths might just be attractive to them.

Nick: Hey, you may actually have something there. But how would it work?

Mason: Well, once a community reaches a certain threshold of gun violence, that would trigger a set of laws and regulations. But they would only apply to that area. It would be like conditions triggering a curfew; something nobody wants to happen. Maybe Congress or the FCC could require radio and TV stations to report firearm deaths, and broadcast what we used to call public service announcements about shootings.

For example, if the selective enforcement would come into play maybe those who own hunting rifles or pistols would not be bothered, but those who own assault rifles would be subject to more scrutiny.

Don't you see? This would provide an incentive for NRA members to do everything possible to keep these rules from going into effect, an incentive to be left alone. In fact, the whole community would have a vested interest in not bringing these Draconian measures down on itself.

But I see a couple possible problems.

Nick: What's that?

Mason: Nick, it's always the same dilemma. You can't legislate common sense or personal responsibility. Laws tend to be absolutes. The reason is, you can't have loopholes without absolutes, and folks like loopholes. Common sense doesn't have any loopholes.

Besides, could Congress do that? Can you have different standards that apply in different ways to different areas of the country?

Nick: The first example that comes to my mind is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson when I was a part of his administration. It was an effort to outlaw voting practices throughout the South that resulted in the disenfranchisement of African Americans.

That Act had a built-in formula for distinguishing various areas of the United States. What the Act called "covered jurisdictions" were forbidden to make any changes in their voting laws without the Justice Department's prior approval, or "pre-clearance." Covered jurisdictions were states and counties in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote, and that had used a "device" to restrict voting. Other parts of the country were not subject to that review, and triggering of restrictions.

That doesn't answer your question, but it's at least an example of something somewhat similar. Another might be the FCC regulation, when I was there, that exempted the smallest radio stations from the burden of lengthy paperwork for their license renewals. They could just submit a postcard. That didn't involve geographical areas, but did provide a disparate standard in the application of the law and regulations.

Mason: Those examples hit the mark; they establish legal precedents.

I remember reading an article in the New York Times opinion section that was about how, more and more, people are coalescing into what is called groups of "like minded people," like organizations, or gated communities. And one of their findings was that the larger the group got, the more it embraced the views and perspectives of its most extreme and radical members, rather than the collective average of the group. ("[W]hen like-minded people get together, they tend to end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before . . . [a] kind of echo-chamber effect . . .. '[B]iased assimilation' . . . means that people assimilate new information in a selective fashion. . . . [I]nformation that supports what they initially thought [is given] considerable weight. . . . [I]nformation that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss . . .." Cass R. Sunstein, "Breaking Up the Echo," New York Times, September 18, 2012, p. A25.)Maybe the NRA has fallen into this category. Maybe the NRA is just a group of like minded people who are held hostage by the extremist views of its most radical members.

# # #

Guns Do Kill -- 30,000 Americans a Year

January 10, 2011, 7:00 a.m.

Just Americans Toasting Toast
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
America's flags are at half-staff. The country mourns the victims of six more handgun deaths. Those among them receiving the most media attention are the very popular Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, federal judge John M. Roll, and a nine-year-old girl, Christina Green, who played on the boys' baseball team, had just been elected to her student council, and came out to meet her member of Congress for the first time. E.g., Marc Lacey, "Federal Charges Cite Assassination Plan," New York Times, January 10, 2011, p. A1.

Meanwhile, the munitions makers, gun manufacturers, handgun retail outlets and shows, and their very generous campaign contributor and powerful lobbying arm, the National Rifle Association, like to disassociate themselves from America's handgun homicides.

One of their favorite lines is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To which one of the popular rejoinders of sanity has been, "Yeah, and toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast."

They are hoping that the fallout from Saturday's events will soon blow over and handgun sales will not only return to normal, but may actually increase.

Sadly, although the memories of Saturday will gradually fade, the nation's deaths from handguns will not. Over 30,000 Americans will die from guns. Of the 18,000 homicide deaths, 68% will involve guns. Few if any Japanese will die from gunshot wounds; their rates of gun deaths are a minuscule fraction of ours.

According to the CDC's latest statistics, of 18,361 homicides 12,632 were death by handgun. "FastStats: Homicide," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Of course, homicide is not the only cause of firearm deaths. The total death toll is closer to 31,000.

Firearm—In 2006, 30,896 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.3 percent of all injury deaths that year. Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 54.6 and 41.4 percent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2006. In 2006, the age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide decreased significantly from 2005 by 3.5 percent, from 5.7 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population to 5.5. However, the age-adjusted rate for all firearm injuries was the same in 2006 as in 2005—10.2 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population (Tables 18–20).

CDC, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 57, No. 14, April 17, 2009, p. 11.

And for every firearm death there are twice as many firearm injuries.

Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2006 (See Figure 1).2,3 It is the second leading cause of death from injury after motor vehicle crashes.4 An estimated two nonfatal injuries occur for every firearm death.5,6 The 2006 age adjusted death rate from firearm injury is 10.2/100,000 with an estimated nonfatal injury rate of 23.6.7 Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults.8,7 Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s and fell below 30,000 in 1999. Yet even at these lower levels, firearm injury represents a significant public health impact, accounting for 6.6% of premature death in this country (Years of Potential Life Lost (YPLL) prior to age 65).9 The fatality rate of firearm violence is more than twice the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ “Healthy People” goal for the year 2010.

Firearm & Injury Center at Penn, Firearm Injury in the U.S., Final Resource Book Updated 2009.

And so how has the Iowa Legislature responded to this carnage? Why by giving the NRA what it wants in exchange for its campaign contributions and members' votes -- an increase in gun sales as a result of a new law creating an ability for virtually all Iowans to carry concealed handguns, notwithstanding the judgment of their local sheriff that it's dangerous to give them a permit to carry. Tom Alex, "Iowans flock to sheriffs to apply for gun permits," Des Moines Register, January 5, 2011 ("Several Iowa sheriffs' offices reported receiving 10 to 20 times as many weapons permit applications on Monday as they do most days. Monday was the first day government offices were open since Saturday, when a law took effect that requires sheriffs under most circumstances to issue permits to carry concealed weapons. Sheriffs previously had greater discretion to deny or restrict such permits.").

Even in the lawless, wild west of old, Iowans had the sense to forbid six-shooters in bars and taverns. Iowa's legislators, yearning for the past, missed that nuance, and have provided that even those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time can legally drink and carry a gun at the same time.

Of course, it doesn't help when politicians say "don't retreat, reload," or put gun sights over opponents congressional districts (as Sarah Palin did with Congresswoman Giffords' district), or talk show hosts speak of "Second Amendment solutions," or say that when ballots don't work there are always bullets. If America's largest corporations think what they say in their multi-billion-dollar advertising on radio and TV is powerful enough to manipulate human behavior, it's hard to believe that illusions to assassination are totally harmless. See, e.g., Paul Krugman, "Climate of Hate," New York Times, January 10, 2011, p. A21; Froma Harrop, "Despite gunman's mental state, it was still a political attack," Dallas Morning News, January 11, 2011.

Harrop writes,

House Speaker John Boehner['s] . . . contention that this was "an attack on all who serve" wasn't quite right. Jared Lee Loughner['s] . . . attack was not against "all who serve." It was on a Democrat who had been vilified by a gun-waving right wing that Boehner's party tolerates and feeds with self-pitying visions of oppression. Democrats have no Palin-like figure putting political opponents in the cross hairs of gun sights . . .. There is no Democratic version of Giffords' recent Republican opponent . . . "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." . . . Jeff McQueen, a tea party "leader" . . . told NPR: "We have a choice of four boxes if we want to make political change in this country. We can go to the soap box, we can go to the ballot box, or we can go to the jury box, and hopefully, we won't have to go to the bullet box." . . . Tom Ashbrook responded: "Bullet box! Are you talking about armed revolution?" McQueen answered . . ., "Have you seen ammunition sales in the last 12 months?" . . . [T]he Republican senatorial candidate in Nevada, Sharron Angle . . . added, "I hope we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies."

But however much debate there may be regarding the impact of speech, there should be very little debate regarding the impact of guns. The numbers are overwhelming.

Of course the real problem is all the frustration building up in those Americans who are still convinced they don't need a toaster to toast toast.

Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency,'" January 5, 2011 (urging more media stories that "associate those appropriations [of taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations] with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.").

Nicholas Johnson, "Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves; Additional Risks from Armed (Campus and Other) Police: Accidental Self-Inflicted Wounds," May 9, 2008.

Nicholas Johnson, "A Public Health Response to Handgun Injuries: Prescription -- Communication and Education," American Journal of Preventive Medicine (May/June 1993) ("So long as we are unwilling to adopt effective, fail-safe solutions--actually removing these instruments of carnage from our midst--the price exacted for this "freedom" will continue to be thousands of lives of children and adults.").
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

UI and the ATF II

February 15, 2008, 10:15, 11:15 a.m.

I first wrote about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- as it's now called -- last September, when the UI's primary focus was on alcohol (for underage binge drinkers) and firearms (for campus police). Nicholas Johnson, "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" in "Iowa City's 'Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,'" September 22 and 23, 2007. Those issues are still with us, but to them we have now added tobacco.

Alcohol
Alcohol abuse is still in the news, creating its easily predictable consequences. (And note how many of these stories were all in one day's paper!).

A patron, so drunk that even an Iowa City bar owner wouldn't let him buy more is turned out on the street and is now an alleged murderer. Brian Morelli, "Mandatory bartender training suggested; Possibility exists of charges against bar," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 12, 2008; Brian Morelli, "Jakes refused entry to alleged murderer," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 13, 2008.

A student is so drunk that he either falls or lies down in ice and snow overnight, still smells of alcohol when he's discovered by workmen in the morning, could easily have lost his life but thankfully looses only fingers and toes. Brian Morelli, "Student loses fingers, toes after passing out in alley," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 13, 2008.

In my September entry I noted the captions on a Bob Patton cartoon cartoon depicting two guys at a bar. One says, "I can't wait for Iowa City bars to go 21-only! This will be such a boon to my business!" To which the other inquires, "What are you, a bar owner?" and the first responds, "No, I run a fake I.D. mill!" In the latest illustration of life imitating art, a student has been arrested for running just such a business -- selling fake IDs for $200 apiece. Lee Hermiston, "Police shut down fake ID business; seize drugs, guns," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 9, 2008.

A local bar owner stiffs the Fire Department, refuses to fix a firetrap problem, then bellyaches when he's politely asked a second time, but is permitted to stay open. Editorial, "Council right to support fire official on bar license," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 9, 2008.

Another bar, in violation of law, holds an "Extreme Midget Wrestling" contest. Lee Hermiston, "Local bar going to court over event; Paperwork is missing from 'Extreme Midget Wrestling' event," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 13, 2008.

And a local bank vice president, by embezzling over a half-million dollars, comes up with an alternative to alcohol abuse: $150,000 worth of powdered cocaine. (We haven't heard much more about the fraternity that was recently closed because of the drug dealing going on from there.) Lee Hermiston, "Former Hills Bank VP indicted," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 13, 2008.

Tobacco
To alcohol, the University has now added the matter of tobacco -- a substance which, while a leading cause of death -- causes much less general societal havoc than alcohol. See Harold Harker, Jr., "Alcohol Has Done More Damage Than Smoke," Des Moines Register, February 15, 2008 ("It's the ironic nature of the ad that created my chuckle. Here we see pictured an individual [a bartender standing in front of rows of liquor bottles] who is a purveyor of the legal drug in America that has single-handedly caused more personal heartache, death, destruction and suffering than any substance known to man -- not to mention related health problems, lower worker productivity, property damage and a host of other social ills . . . and he is complaining about breathing secondhand smoke?"). That's kind of my point.

Alcohol abuse gets a wink and a nod, and tobacco gets a total ban. Erin Jordan and Mason Kerns, "U of I to ban smoking on campus next year," Des Moines Register, February 5, 2008. It's an interesting juxtaposition. (However, like alcohol, local businesses also profit from its sale to those under-age customers to whom sales are illegal. Lee Hermiston, "Three Coralville businesses fail tobacco checks," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 13, 2008.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for discouraging smoking. Epidemiologists have told me that they can still see in the statistics the impact of the 1960s anti-smoking commercials I encouraged when an FCC commissioner. As co-director of Iowa's Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy I helped select anti-tobacco efforts as our number one priority -- the most effective single thing we could do to promote public health.

But I do think that an academic institution of intellectuals has an obligation to at least recognize a distinction between the underlying rationale for various anti-smoking policies.

Smoke is a health hazard, whether from burnt toast, a bonfire or cigarettes. For a flight attendant in a plane, a waitress in a bar, a co-worker in a building, or a student in a classroom, there's little they can do to avoid that hazard. To prohibit smoking in such places is simply an application of the old adage that "your freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose begins."

The second-hand smoke prohibition is directed not so much at the harm the smoker is doing to him or herself, but rather to the harm they are doing to others (although a beneficial by-product of the policy may be the encouragement to quit it provides smokers).

However, to ban smoking anywhere on campus, irrespective of any harm it is doing to others (beyond de minimis), cannot claim that rationale. That's not to say such a policy cannot be justified. It's just to say that it's difficult to justify without acknowledging that it contains an element of paternalism (i.e., "we know better than you do what is good for you"). Now the fact of the matter is that we do know better than the smoker what is good for him or her -- indeed, there are a good many smokers who would agree that we do. It's only to say that you can't sneak the policy in under the "harm to others from secondhand smoke" tent.

A campus-wide ban has an element of social ostracism, a punitive quality, about it. That may be OK, but it at least needs to be acknowledged.

Firearms
Regarding the arming of campus police, in the September blog entry I wrote,

Very little (if any) evidence and data have been offered to support the notion that even if campus police were armed that they would have many (if any) occasions to use guns, or otherwise put, that their being armed would actually prevent acts of violence that, but for their possessing guns, would otherwise have occurred.

And so it is this morning that we read of yet another incident of inexplicable random gun deaths in a classroom at the near-neighbor Northern Illinois University. Ted Gregory, "NIU Gunman Identified," Chicago Tribune, February 15, 2008, 11:34 a.m. It's tragic; it's sad; but whether NIU has armed campus security or not, their guns would not have prevented this tragedy -- nor would the guns of our campus police should, God forbid, a similar incident occur here. As the Trib quotes NIU President Peters as saying, ""I don't know if any plan can prevent this kind of tragedy." And see Erin Jordan, "Regent: Steps to Protect Students Carry No Guarantees," Des Moines Register, December 15, 2008 ("[A] member of the Iowa Board of Regents [Craig Lang of Brooklyn] said there are no guarantees the steps [taken by the Regents and university administrators] are adequate [to guarantee student safety]. 'Unfortunately, that [the procedure put in place] doesn't mean we can protect everybody from someone like that who wants to kill.'")

I noted elsewhere,

There is no basis for the belief that guns on campus won't create the same risks as they do elsewhere -- including the risk that a campus police officer's gun will be stolen in a scuffle and then used on him or her, or someone else.

Nicholas Johnson, "Weaponry on Campus: Wrong Reasons, Wrong Result" in "Peace Through War; Security Through Weaponry," September 6, 2007.

Now, sadly, we've seen that prediction come true as well. A police officer in New Orleans, following a scuffle, was killed with her own gun by her assailant. It remains a real risk on the UI campus as well -- that armed police end up making a campus more dangerous rather than less. Leslie Eaton, "Officer's Slaying Leaves New Orleans Asking Why," New York Times, January 31, 2008

But in some ways the most baffling aspect of arming our campus police -- hilarious if it weren't so serious and expensive -- involves the purchase of the guns. Lee Hermiston, "UI Police getting new guns," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 4, 2008; Melanie Kucera, "UI police switch guns," The Daily Iowan, February 5, 2008.

Hermiston reports,

Since then [November 2007], officers have been carrying their black .40 caliber SIG Sauer P229s with them everywhere they go.

However, beginning in April, the officers will carry a new handgun, the .40 caliber Smith & Wesson M & P.

And the cost of this switch?

The department will order about 40 guns, Visin said, at the cost of about $430 per gun. Visin said that price is about $170 less per gun than the cost of the SIG Sauers. Also, Visin said that the department will be able to trade in their old guns to the provider and the credit officers receive will go towards the purchase of the new handguns.

“It’s costing us about $3,000 and some change,” Visin said.

OK, $430, plus the $170 additional for the P229s, is $600, times 40 guns is $24,000. Now we're going to pay an additional $3000 for the cheaper guns? What a deal we're getting on that trade-in, huh? The bottom line? Looks like we're going to be paying $27,000 for 40 $430 guns which, had we purchased them in the first place would have cost $17,200 rather than $27,000.

Of course, they get a lot of use so it's probably worth it, right? Kucera reports,

Since Nov. 22, 2007, when the UI police were officially armed, no instances of weapon use have occurred, Visin said. In the year and a half that state troopers have been using the guns, Paradise can only recall two times in which the trigger was pulled.

But wait, it gets worse.

Remember the call for armed campus police? One of the arguments was that they should be similarly equipped as the Iowa City Police. Well, they were. They won't be any longer. As Kucera reports, "The Iowa City police still use older guns, Glocks" -- the ones the campus police apparently had before they decided to "step up."

Someone calling himself "623" posted the following comment to Hermiston's Press-Citizen story,

It is misleading and foolish to call this weapon a "step up" from the weapons carried by other departments. While the M & P has sold very well since its inception, that has been strongly augmented by aggressive marketing and promotion. Despite good sales, there have been a number of issues with the guns and many "upgrades" to address those issues. The most recent of which involves melting of the frame after sustained firing. Smith and Wesson seems commited to the platform, but that doesn't make it better than anybody else's product.

The "step down" Glock pistols carried by other agencies (something like 75% or more agencies nationwide) are based on a design that is both simple and proven. A Glock pistol disassembles in to less than forty pieces and is perhaps one of the easiest weapons platforms on the market to maintain. Add to that near infinite industry support (holsters, parts, etc) and the fact that it has existed in virtually the same form for more than 20 years, and you simply may not call it a "step down."

The Sig handguns that the department of public safety is getting rid of are considered to be very "high end" guns.

"Posted by: 623 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:40 pm."

I have no idea who this is, and I claim no comparable knowledge about guns. But whoever he or she is they at least sound like they know what they're talking about.

Whatever else you may think about arming campus police, I don't think we're off to a very reassuring start.

# # #

Iowa City's "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms"

September 22, 2007, 4:20 p.m.; September 23, 2007, 4:30 p.m.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Iowa City is currently dealing with issues of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. It's a combination we come by honestly with solid historic precedent.

It was 1789, during the very first Congress, that the first federal legislation taxing alcohol was enacted -- in one sense the beginning of today's ATF. By 1863 three enforcement officers -- presumably armed -- were added to its ranks. (The agency had found that not all moonshiners were enthusiastic about paying taxes.) Once a part of the Treasury Department, in January 2003 the ATF was transferred to the Justice Department as a part of the creation of Homeland Security. Its full name is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Nor has there been a shortage of guns.

The ATF publishes an annual report of U.S. handgun manufacturing. The agency is either woefully shorthanded or overly pressured by secrecy advocates among gun lobbyists and White House personnel, because the last "annual" report is for 2004. (Its website expresses the hope that the 2005 report may be ready sometime this month -- "mid-September 2007.")

Anyhow, in 2004 there were essentially four firms that accounted for half of the 728,511 new pistols (Sturm Ruger, Arizona; Bryco Arms, California; Smith & Wesson, Massachusetts; Beretta, Maryland), and two that were the source of half of the 294,099 revolvers (Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson). Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report," 2004.

Firearms Beget Firearms

At the outset, let me repeat that my primary concern has been, not the ultimate decision regarding the arming (or not) of our campus police. It is the process by which we arrived at it. It was not, to borrow the line from Fox News, "fair and balanced." It was a presentation by advocates for arming, not an academic, analytical evaluation of the data. And such arguments as were made were not very persuasive, such as, "everybody else is doing it," and "but we're properly trained" -- neither of which address the central issue: Is there a genuine need for more weapons on the UI campus?

As Regent Rose Vasquez noted, "There was no situation that sort of rose up or elevated itself to a level that but for a gun, things would have been different."

Very little (if any) evidence and data have been offered to support the notion that even if campus police were armed that they would have many (if any) occasions to use guns, or otherwise put, that their being armed would actually prevent acts of violence that, but for their possessing guns, would otherwise have occurred. (Even less analysis was provided regarding exactly what it is campus police do; how student safety is allocated between them and City police; how the required numbers of both might be altered by exploring other options in the allocation of those responsibilities.)

But let's put that aside. Let's assume that they would have occasions to use them.

There seems to be at least some basis for concern that "guns beget guns;" that is to say, if someone is thinking about bringing a gun onto campus anyway they may well be more rather than less inclined to do so knowing that they may have occasion to deal with an armed campus police officer.

Here are three items that would seem to support that concern.

State29, who takes me to task for my position on the weapons issue, State29, "What Makes You So Special?" September 20, 2007, concludes, "Actually, I'm in favor of allowing students to conceal carry while on campus. That would freak out the ivory tower crowd even more, even though students having weapons available to them have saved lives."

Apparently at least a couple of UI students have already followed up on State29's suggestion. Kelsey Beltramea, "Some Live the 2nd Amendment; Two UI Students -- An Aspiring Police Officer and Former Marine -- are Both Licensed to Carry Concealed Weapons, and Support Arming UI Police," The Daily Iowan, September 18, 2007, p. 4A.

How many other students are licensed to "conceal carry"? How many more will be as a result of the campus police being armed? How many will carry guns even if they are not licensed to do so?

This morning's Press-Citizen has a Letter to the Editor suggesting that they all should. It reads in its entirety,

In response to your Sept. 15 story, "I can't walk home alone," I say, "You could if there was just one gun law: Everybody carries one."

Robert G. Dostal, "Carrying Guns Could Improve Safety," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 22, 2007, p. 16A.

When Bob Patton had his editorial cartoon depicting President Sally Mason announcing "I think we should give armed campus police a shot -- perhaps I need to rephrase that" a reader named "airship" posted the comment, "Great idea, but I'm concerned that it might not go far enough. After all, what are the odds that a campus security officer will be right there when an incident occurs? Just to be extra safe and secure, I think we should arm all the students, too. With automatic weapons. And grenades." September 20, 2007, 1:52 p.m.

There's a certain superficial logic to these positions.

This is an age in which we do more and more for ourselves. We used to have to rely on a telephone employee to place our long distance calls. Now we can "dial" even internationally ourselves. Instead of elevator operators, we press the buttons. Grocery store employees used to get our groceries for us and then "ring them up." Now we get, bar-code-scan, and process our own credit card payments for them. The "service stations" of old are now but a pump and a credit card reader. Bank tellers have been replaced by ATMs -- a deprivation for which we pay, for the privilege of operating them ourselves. Not only have these changes shifted costs from businesses to their customers, radically increasing unemployment while employing us at something well under even slave wages, but they have imbued us with a do-it-yourself sense of responsibility and possibility.

The enthusiasm that university administrators across the nation bring to giving their campus police more deadly weapons teaches as lesson even more forcefully than if it were taught in a classroom: Safety and security in our society (or within other countries) can best be provided through the use of deadly weapons.

That being the case, why not -- as with the other aspects of our lives formerly provided by institutions -- carry the weapons ourselves, rather than rely on the institutional police? It appears the idea is catching on in some quarters, thus further increasing the weaponry on campus beyond the guns provided campus police.

This can be just one more way in which we can contribute to economic growth, with the increased gun sales, especially if the manufacturers see the potential in the academic gun market and ultimately offer us Microsoft-like "academic discounts" through the University Bookstore outlets and Iowa Book.

Alcohol

Once again we have a wonderful Press-Citizen juxtapositioning of a very well researched and written Rachel Gallegos page-one story with a delightfully incisive Bob Patton editorial cartoon. Rachel Gallegos, "Proposal Concerns Downtown Leaders; Businesses Worry Limit Would Hurt Profits, Vibrant Downtown Life," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 22, 2007, p. A1.

(Unfortunately, the cartoon is not yet posted. It depicts two guys at a bar. One says, "I can't wait for Iowa City bars to go 21-only! This will be such a boon to my business!" To which the other inquires, "What are you, a bar owner?" and the first responds, "No, I run a fake I.D. mill!")

This whole thing would be hilarious if it weren't so serious -- what it's doing to young peoples' lives, the quality of downtown, the reputation of the city, the demands on (and costs to taxpayers of) the police.

"21-only." For starters, to call the proposal "21-only" is like naming an act of Congress that gives major campaign contributors the right to increase pollution "The Clean Air Act." Everybody gets to stay in the bars until 10:00 p.m. I don't know when these bars open in the mornings, but for at least 12 hours every day they're wide open.

I'm not going to get into the sleeping habits of undergraduates, and I'm certainly not going to advocate laws and regulations imposing curfews (although universities -- including Iowa -- certainly had them for fraternity and dorm residents years ago). And see the Gazette story, Alison Gowans, "It's the Law; Whether It's a City or Parental Curfew, Teens Know Time to be Home," The Gazette, September 23, 2007, p. L1.

But it does seem to me that leaving bars before 10:00 p.m. might be a good idea for those few undergraduates who are actually attending college for purposes of getting an education (if, indeed, they would be wanting to binge drink more than once a week in bars at all). By the time you get your things together and leave the bar, stand outside for some last minute visiting with friends and saying goodbye, walk to your residence, wind down and relax, get ready for bed, and actually fall asleep, 10:00 is about as late as you ought to be staying in bars anyway -- especially if you know the relationship between good health and mental alertness on the one hand and going to bed at the same time every night and regularly getting an adequate night's sleep on the other.

And even that's meaningless. As Patton's cartoon suggests, young college students tell me, national studies and polls report, and this morning's story repeats, what with fake IDs, half-hearted enforcement by bar owners (who operate with the inherent conflict of interest that the more willing they are to ignore the law the richer they become), and the ease with which underage patrons can order alcohol for themselves or have someone order for them, there are simply no meaningful restraints on under-age drinking in Iowa City.

As Jim Clayton, vice chairman of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission, and executive committee chairman of the Stepping Up Coalition is quoted in the story as saying, "They make money on that drink whether you drink it yourself, you give it to a friend or you stumble and spill it."

Prohibition??!! That anyone could characterize this profit-maximizing "compromise" as something "similar to Prohibition" is simply stunning. And yet the story quotes a local business person as saying just that.

Then comes, of course, the old canard from him: "Prohibition doesn't work -- never has never will."

(a) In point of fact, from a public health perspective the epidemiological data documents that Prohibition very effectively did work (in reducing alcohol-related illness and disease).

(b) Gallegos' story immediately continues to report that "Iowa City has a 69 percent binge drinking rate compared with the 42 percent binge drinking rate in Ames -- where there is a 21-and-over ordinance." So if "prohibition" seems to be working at another of the Iowa Regents' universities won't you please explain to me once again just why it is it won't work at the UI?

(c) A recent Gallup poll reports that during the 1940s the percentage of Americans who were regular smokers was in the low to mid-40% range. As recently as the late 1980s the percentages ranged from 31-38%. The percentage in July of this year (2007) was 21% -- the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup organization. There are of course many variables affecting these numbers, but clearly the "prohibition" of smoking in UI buildings -- along with thousands of other restaurants and buildings around the country -- has had its impact.

Besides, the "prohibition," such as it is, is already in the Iowa law. There is a legal "prohibition" on bars selling alcohol to anyone under 21 -- raising some question as to why the local bar owners (and their advocates on the City Council) are fearful of less revenue, since presumably they would assert they're not selling to under-age patrons now anyway -- either before or after 10:00 p.m.

Iowa City's version of "21-only" doesn't even go so far as to enforce the laws already on the books in a rational way -- as is done in Ames! It leaves open the opportunity bar owners have to sell as much alcohol to under-age drinkers as they can possibly get away with up until 10:00 p.m.!

And you call that "prohibition"??!! Give me a break.

Our "vibrant downtown life." Another argument put forward by those advocating continuing the violations of the "spirit" and letter of Iowa's liquor laws is that to comply with the law, discourage binge drinking, and minimize the illness, violence and sexual abuse that accompanies it, would interfere with the "vibrant downtown life" of Iowa City.

My dictionary offers many definitions of "vibrant" but vomiting, fist fights, falling-down drunk, and sexual assaults aren't among them.

Sailing to riches on a sea of beer. What was that old drinking song?

"75 million gallons of beer on the wall
75 million gallons of beer . . .."

That's how much beer was consumed in Iowa last year -- a good bit of it in Iowa City.

At 8 16-ounce-pint glasses per gallon, that's 600 million glasses, and . . . Oh, you can do the math. We're talking billions, not millions, of dollars.

Bar owners are making more money sailing on this sea of beer than Columbus ever made sailing on "the ocean blue."

So we're back once again to "revenue is needed." ("Once 'revenue is needed' is the Polestar for a university's financial decisions its moral compass begins to spin as if it was located on the North Pole." Nicholas Johnson, "UI Loves Gambling" in "UI Held Hostage Day 410 - March 7," March 7, 2007.) Although, in this instance, the revenue that is needed is coming from sales that are expressly in violation of Iowa law.

Change the law. State29 has what he thinks is a better idea: Just change the law to permit 18-year-olds to drink. State29, "The Publican Campaign," September 22, 2007.

The least one can say for such a proposal is that it would contribute to greater respect for the legal system generally -- a goal I have as a result of my legal training. Any law that is routinely violated, whatever the subject, only further erodes respect for all legal standards.

I have always held out the possible advantages of an "over-18" standard being substituted for the "over-21" -- though I would like to see the data, others' "best practices," and make sure that in our time and place (when and where alcohol abuse is not only rampant but thought "cute" as a rite and right of passage) that it really would be a safe and wise choice. Lowering the drinking age would at least remove the current attraction of "getting away with something; beating the system" as a reason for binge drinking.

I've actually proposed that we at least explore the possible advantages of going further: encourage parents to introduce children to alcohol European style (in very small quantities, or watered down), as a responsible, family-oriented, thing to do at meals. My guess (though I'd obviously want to base such a proposal on much more than a guess) is that it would go a long way to removing the association of binge drinking with rebelliousness (and, ironically, "maturity") in the minds of young college students.

Until we're able to get to more of the root causes of the UI's binge drinking problem, however, I'm not confident that telling bar owners and those too young to drink (according to Iowa law) that they are only free to violate the law before 10:00 p.m. is going to solve very much.

# # #