Humanities desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 25

The Office of National Drug Control Policy reauthorisation act, and separation of powers

Apparently, a now deleted edit on We the People (petitioning system) to quote:

Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, was chosen to craft the administration's response.[24] The criticism stems from the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, which states that the Director must oppose all attempts to legalize the use of illicit drugs in any form. See Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy#Anti-legalization_Policy

Now, my issue has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of cannabis legalization. It not about the choice of the director as the person to respond to the petition. It IS about the law itself, which binds the director. I just have a major problem with a law which requires a public servant to take a particular position on a Political question. Courts aren't allowed to - why should public servants (in this case attached to the Executive) be not just allowed to, but legally bound to take a particular position on what is clearly an issue for the legislature? The civil service can offer advice to the legislature on policy issues, but to oblige them to take a particular political position? Aren't there Separation of Powers issues here too? Dare I ask, is this law constitutional? And moreso, how would a legal scholar view the issues I raise with the law? What is the role of such a body in taking positions on political questions, and matters of political debate? Eliyohub (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Act list a punishment for not doing so, such as removal from office ? If not, it would really just be a toothless "statement" by the legislature, which has no force of law behind it. If it did, it might well be challenged in the courts, should they ever attempt to enforce it. The way the legislature might be able to get away with it is by saying the punishment is to stop funding the Office, should it not do as they tell it. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there's no punishment for a disobedient director (I assume disobedience would result in a firing, nothing more - don't think he'd need to be impeached), isn't it problematic to order a public servant attached to the executive to get involved in political questions, and take a specific position on a political issue which is frankly the business of the legislature? Could pro-drug-legalization advocates challenge this law? Eliyohub (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firing would constitute punishment. However, there's a problem with the way laws are challenged in the US, that to have standing, you must have been materially harmed, and if there's no punishment, there is no material harm. Thus, it would remain a silly law that goes unchallenged. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, if an individual, or group of individuals, could argue that they have potentially been denied access to "illicit drugs" which could be beneficial to them due to this law, which requires someone on the public payroll to wage a political battle against their efforts to get the law changed, would they not have "standing" to challenge it? (As I said, the legal issues are Political question and separation of powers). Eliyohub (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courts don't generally accept such a long chain as evidence of standing. How would you quantify what harm was done to you under this argument ? The position of this particular gov agency isn't all that likely to have been the one factor which would have changed the law, after all. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verily. It is very odd that the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is both explicitly and implicitly denied the opportunity to have a worthwhile input into the National Drug Control Policy of which he is the head off. Think many editors here are only too aware of the fact that their grandchildren can't walk into a shop and by tobacco or alcohol products because the guy behind the counter knows they are too young.... but at the same time, they can be accosted in the street by the local dealer who points out that all their friends (?) smoke this or snort that and here-is- some-for-free – try it and come back if you want more. So the The National Drug Control Policy is ensuring that the black markets remains very profitable and a threat to all those young people who would not ever consider taking drugs unless a dealer beguiled them. The Non-governmental organization that (I think) has come out with the best sense on this, is detailed in their publication After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyohub, you have to realize that laws are no more than prayers; expressions of a wish in the form of words. Second, illicit means illegal, so the law itself is meaningless. Once a drug is legalized, there is no requirement to prevent it from becoming licit. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Director must campaign against any attempt to make it legal, regardless of any public health or safety logic, that's the point. If his or her campaign fails and congress does ignore him (he's forced to take that position by law, that's the point), then yes, he no longer needs to fight against it. But the issues I raised about such an official being told to take a particular role in political debate stand. Eliyohub (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes the UN from the League of Nations?

The League of Nations failed because Germany, Japan, Italy, and a few other countries withdrew from it and started war. What is the guarantee that a few nations will not withdraw from the UN, form an alliance, and declare war on the rest of the world? How is the UN prepared to prevent such an event? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both had the same advantage of using the power of the big nations to force the small nations to behave, but also the same flaw that there is little they could do to control the large nations. However, knowing this, the rest of the world has it's own alliances that are more likely to work, like NATO, since they don't include the "bad actors", like Russia and China, which means they can't veto any actions against them.

How could a worldwide organization, by itself, control the large nations ? Well, the large nations would need to surrender sovereignity to a world government, which hardly seems likely, without a World War 3 to bring it about. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the League never included all of the major powers in the first place (see Member states of the League of Nations); the US was never a member, and the USSR didn't join until 1934 and was expelled just five years later, while the Soviet Union was part of the United Nations from the beginning, as was the United States. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the world has changed significantly since 1939. It is not primarily the UN that keeps countries from bombing each other, it is rather deterrance and economic interdependence. As per the differences between LoN and UN, the key difference lies in that the whole world is represented in the UN (with African, Asian and Latin American countries constituting a majority in the UN General Assembly) whilst the LoN was mainly a European club. --Soman (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Soman. as to keeping world peace, the answer, as I see it, is that the UN does not have this power. The Security Council has five permanent members, and given that they have a veto on any resolution, they can, as far as their UN situation is concerned, act with impunity. For example, Russia's recent actions in Ukraine. There'd be no way for the UN to stop them, as they could veto any resolution censuring them. The General Assembly could issue scathing resolutions, but they have no binding power. NATO would probably have far more power here. The Cold war was ugly at times, but did the UN play much in the way of any constructive containment of it? Or rather, the myriad proxy conflicts and superpower-sponsored brutal dictatorships it spawned? Perhaps in the realm of negotiation, it did something. But in terms of ordering the parties around? Toothless, by its very design. During the cold war, the world did come to the brink of world war 3, most notably in the Cuban missile crisis. Did the UN have any power to do anything to defuse this crisis which threatened the world? I'd think not, but correct me if I'm wrong.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the UN played a role; see Korean War or United Nations Operation in the Congo for a couple of examples. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demand and supply and currency

If smaller currency is cents, demand more than supply at x cents, supply more than demand at x-1 cents, what happens? What countries do to prevent this? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The value of the currency rises, like any case where demand outstrips supply. Or the central bank engages in Quantitative easing if it doesn't want this to happen. We have an article on Monetary policy which may be of interest. Eliyohub (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding, but I think you're asking if certain denomications of currency might be worth more, or less, than their printed value, relative to the other denominations, due to undersupply or oversupply of the various denominations. That doesn't seem likely, as people would be reluctant to pay more, or get less, than the printed value. What else would happen, then ? Well, if pennies were nowhere to be found, people could buy small items in bulk, so the price would add up to a larger denomination, or they could pay with credit cards, or they could pay with larger denominations and leave the balance "on account" for their next transaction. I understand that, in the US, prior to the introduction of the half cent, a penny was too large of a denomination for small purchases, so methods like this were required. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean if for certain cheap goods and services (like print paper) demand more than supply at x cents, supply more than demand at x-1 cents, cannot reach demand equal supply because no currency smaller than cents. What happen? Like StuRat say, no point for goverment to make even smaller currency that worth very little. --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean x+1 cents for the sale price? Special offer: 2 for 2x+1 cents. Dbfirs 18:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are saying that the item costs less than the smallest unit of currency. That's actually quite common, for things like paper clips. They just don't sell them individually, but always in bulk. Here's some that cost about half a cent each, sold in a package of 100: [1]. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there would be no need to mention x. Dbfirs 21:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the concept of determining the ideal price as a result of supply and demand seems out of place for this Q. Suffice it to say that the merchant has chosen a price, we don't need to know why, and it's less than the smallest unit of currency.

There's also a related problem that the price is too small to round to an appropriate unit of currency. Say it costs you 1.1 cents per item to make them, but you wouldn't be able to sell them at 2 cents each. Again, the answer is to sell in bulk, where you can set a price closer to your actual cost per unit.

Another version of selling in bulk is to sell at part of a kit. Take the little screws used to hold eyeglasses together. There wouldn't be much point in trying to sell 100 of those to anyone besides optometrists. But you can sell a few little screws, along with little screwdrivers, cloth for cleaning eyeglasses, etc., in a case, as a kit. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the eyeglasses example. A person who needs to fix their glasses may well be willing to pay more than the optometrist who buys in bulk, even though it's significantly more than the few screws he actually needs are worth, in order to get his glasses fixed so he can see properly again. So the merchant has some pricing power here. A box of 100 screws may only cost an optometrist $5, for example, but the person in need of one or two screws may very well be willing to pay 20c a screw, without any grudges. (I know I would). Hardware stores which sell such things often sell individual screws, nuts, and bolts at low prices, but which are still massively above the "bulk" cost a builder or carpenter would pay. It's not a big enough deal for the customer to get aggrieved and go searching for the cheapest option over a few cents. Or buy a "bulk" box of 100 screws or whatever that he has no use for (you can't easily find a buyer for such things on ebay, and even if you could, the shipping cost would outweigh the value of the screws). So he'll simply pay a higher price per unit to get only what he needs. Eliyohub (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point of the Q, Eli. The assumption is that the item in question (eyeglass screws, in this case) costs less than the smallest denomination of currency, so selling them individually doesn't work. They could be sold in bulk, to bring the price back above the minimum currency denomination, but most people wouldn't want 100 eyeglass screws. So, they sell them bundled with other things, to make a kit which costs more than the smallest unit of currency. StuRat (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I and the IP said, in practice I don't agree that this is what happens. A person will simply pay more than the item is "worth", if he needs the item. If he doesn't need a kit, he'll simply pay more (sometimes far more) for the individual screws than they would cost if purchased in bulk. He'd certainly be willing to pay the minimum currency denomination. (maybe there would be an exception here for third-world countries, where literally every penny counts, and even the minimum denomination makes a real difference to the buyer's wallet. But in the west, people will just fork out a token price, albeit one far more than the bulk cost). As the IP explained, people pay far more for a spare part for their car than the part would contribute to the price of a whole car. Of course, this only holds true for items people often only need in ones or twos (e.g. eyeglasses screws). You wouldn't sell paperclips this way, as there'd be few people who'd only want to buy one paperclip. If I only need one paperclip, I'll scab it off someone, but I'll still happily offer them a nickel for it. The nickel is too small to my bottom line for me to care that I'm overpaying. Eliyohub (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you need one eyeglass screw and they cost 1/100th of the smallest currency unit. Would you buy the package of 100, for one currency unit, or buy 1, and pay the same amount, or buy the kit with a few screws, screwdrivers, and wipes in it, also for the same price ? Most people will buy the kit. Knowing this, the retailer may not offer anything but the kit. (Of course, not too many nations currently lack small denominations, but they did at one time. I recall in Little House on the Prairie where Laura got a penny for her birthday, and spent it on so much candy that she got sick.) StuRat (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an almost completely unrealistic scenario you're painting here, at least in most of the modern-day world's economies and monetary systems. I did mention that third-world countries are possibly an exception, but as you note, in most countries, the smallest denomination is not that big. Even if the United Sates phased out the penny and nickel (which has been canvassed, due to their negative seignorage), people would still likely pay a dime for a screw, rather than a dollar for a kit, unless they had some use for the kit - and even if a dime a screw was far above the bulk price. On the big side, we have the 500 euro note, but which modern-day country does not have very small denominations? Eliyohub (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any do, but that's the assumption in the Q we were asked to use. And I consider how this problem was handled in historical periods in the US and elsewhere to be valid answers. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dbfirs I mean supply more than demand at x+1 cents. Sorry for the mistake. Yes StuRat I mean when "the price is too small to round to an appropriate unit of currency". Thanks for the answers. So for a good where supply equals demand at 2.5 cents then sellers will only sell in bulk or a package with other items? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you could sell 2 items for 5 cents, in that case, which might work for something that doesn't need packaging, like pencils. But, if packaging and special handling is involved, like for eggs, you probably want to sell in large quantities, or else the cost of the packaging, handling, etc., would be far more than the eggs. Eggs are usually only sold by the dozen, but I have seen them sold by the half-dozen, although often at about the same price as the full 12. Also, eggs by the dozen often go on sale, but rarely does a half-dozen go on sale, so that the 12 can actually be cheaper than 6. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Hi, in this section the use of anti-SLAPP laws by the government (!) is mentioned. But is this actually realistic? I mean, why should a petition or anything alike be a form of SLAPP the government could claim to oppose to? I don't quite see how that is supposed to work. Thus, I'be very grateful for any explanation! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubon, no one here had an answer for you last week, or the week before. Asking the same question over and over again isn't going to get you any better results. Rojomoke (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the section you referred to has been gone since 17 December [2] Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]