Reductio ad Absurdam

Reason’s Hit & Run has two posts that bring reduction ad absurdum to mind. In one, it is reported that a Missouri legislator wants to make purchasers of baking soda register and go the counter to buy it because it is used in making crack cocaine: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119518.html . Ridiculous? As H&R points out, this is no more ridiculous than laws controlling the purchase of allergy medicine because it is used to make meth. My brother tells me that wooden matches are restricted in Georgia because their heads can be used in meth making.

An apple or the cardboard tube in toilet paper can be transformed into serviceable hash pipes. Wouldn’t it make sense to restrict these products the same way? If someone can conceivably misuse an object, then everyone should be inconvenienced. You know what else is used in meth making? Containers of all sorts. Yet you can just go right into Wal-Mart and buy all you want with nobody questioning you.

The other post takes the idea of carbon offsets and extends the reasoning behind them to other forms of anti-social douchebaggery: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119538.html . If you are a jerk, you can buy offsets from folks who will be extra nice. That way, you needn’t feel bad about your rudeness because you are really being nice when you take into account the offsets you bought.

This idea can be extended to other areas as well. Obesity offsets might work. I’d give money to people to eat less and be scary thin so as to balance out my fatness. If enough people participate, the epidemic of obesity will be solved as the average weight of Americans falls. Of course, that problem may be solved by increased use of ethanol. What you do, see, is encourage more corn to be used to make ethanol and less for animal food and human consumption. That way, food costs go up, and fat people won’t be able to afford to eat so much, especially poor fat people. Obesity epidemic and energy dependence solved in one brilliant stroke.

Rogier van Bakel reports on Alabama’s prohibition of sales of decent beer: http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2007/04/ban_potent_beer.html
Alabamans can’t buy microbrews because they have a slightly higher alcohol content than other beers and children might drink them and get drunk faster. As Rogier points out, kids aren’t supposed to be buying any beer and they have a wide range of boozes to choose from if they aim to get drunk. What’s so special about good beer when there are so many other things that Alabaman kids might misuse? The state has a lot of power to regulate alcohol. Other articles in interstate commerce, not so much.