New at Reason: Read Our Complete February Issue

January 30, 2009

Our entire February issue is now available online. Don't miss Matt Welch on the failure of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jacob Sullum on the government's crusade against drug paraphernalia, Ronald Bailey on the late Michael Crichton, the complete Citings and Letters sections, Brickbats, and much more.

Read all about it here.

Comments

Naga Sadow|1.30.09 @ 12:02PM|#

I say, does this issue discuss the terrible beating Arizona is predicted to bring down on Pittsburg.

There Will Be Blood!

|1.30.09 @ 12:27PM|#

I say, does this issue discuss the terrible beating Arizona is predicted to bring down on Pittsburg.

If it's a spelling bee between the football fans, Pittsburg(h) is in trouble.

|1.30.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Make that Arizona is in trouble.
Apparently, if it's a reading comprehension competition, I am.

Naga Sadow|1.30.09 @ 12:42PM|#

It is neither, J sub D. It would seem we both tripped over our first posts.

And NO! Arizona is not is trouble! Fitzgerald and Warner are gonna team up to deliver a most extravagant beating upon Pittsburg(h)! As stated elsewhere, I suspect that Roethlisberger is liable to have his arms ripped from their respective sockets.

Gonzo|1.30.09 @ 12:57PM|#

"Reason considered including rolling papers labeled "For Marijuana Use Only" in each copy of this issue to illustrate the silliness of paraphernalia laws but decided against it because of legal concerns."

Kudos to Reason for running Jacob's articles at all. That took guts. But given the caselaw, what legal concerns could they really have here? I call BS. They clearly just wussed out.

Naga Sadow|1.30.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Gonzo,

The Supreme Court has already ruled free speech isn't protected if it goes against anti-drug propaganda. Why would Reason push it with "drug" paraphernalia?

Gonzo|1.30.09 @ 1:40PM|#

Naga,

Jacob's article is "speech ... [that] goes against anti-drug propaganda." Yet they decided to "push it" by publishing that speech. They decided not to "push it" by giving away rolling papers, ostensibly on the advice of their lawyers. But when has anyone ever been charged with a crime for giving away otherwise legal cigarette rolling papers? The article is silent on this point, suggesting it's never happened before.

In other words, it's safe to assume the "our lawyers told us not to do it" line is a pretext. I suspect the truth is this was an editorial compromise. The tone of Jacob's articles here seems different from past issues. It's as if he's ditched the veils. Surely some at Reason are desperate to avoid the mainstream perception that libertarians are merely Republicans who want to smoke pot.

Naga Sadow|1.30.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Gonzo,

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary with Sullum.

Gonzo|1.30.09 @ 2:09PM|#

Um, nothing out of the ordinary? Seriously?The title of one of the articles is "You can put your weed in there." Do I have to draw you a Venn diagram? One circle represents your typical High Times article (Hey MacGyver stoners, check this out!!!). The other represents your typical Cato style criticism of the war on drugs. The two circles typically do not overlap in a Reason article, as the editorial board has clearly pushed the magazine to stay more in the Cato circle. I'm not saying that's wrong, rather I'm all for it. But it is interesting that Sullum blames the decision on their lawyers (and yes, I am one).

|1.30.09 @ 9:35PM|#

So I want to smoke pot... that makes me 'mere'?

Firas|1.31.09 @ 10:19PM|#

The article on Crichton makes me want to bang my head against the wall. If all you take away from the cautionary tone struck in Jurassic Park, and especially "Frankenstein" is "pro-science vs. anti-science", you're looking at the literature with way too blinkered and myopic a lens.

It's exactly science that leads him to point out that nature has ways that are still mysterious to us. It's exactly science that led Crichton to be against extortionist patent laws late in his life. That's not anti-corporate vs pro-corporate, it's pro-free-market.

Frankenstein is not pro-science or anti-science. Has Ronald Bailey read the novel? The moral questions about creation and responsibility, autonomy and mortality are way older and much more primal than "science".

I don't even know what to say, that's some unbelievable cultural criticism right there.