Ambivalence

Two stories caught my eye today that made me feel slightly ambivalent about the possible outcomes (no, I'm not always in a state of raging, arrogant certainty).

First story: The French are retreating again. After retreating from Germans, Arabs and their own students for years, this time they're retreating from their own smokers. Fear of electoral reprisals has caused the government to postpone a new law banning smoking indoors. Other examples of legislative backpedalling is given in the linked article. Now, I'm all in favor of eternally postponing laws that violate private property rights, and a ban on smoking (however much I hate that disgusting habit) is a gross violation of such rights... but on the other hand, I'd sure like to see the French government actually stand up for something, other than farm subsidies and the right not to bathe frequently.

Second story: The FDA has released a statement dismissing claims that marihuana has any discernible health benefits. Now on the one hand, I tend to think the FDA is most likely correct about this. Almost every "herbal" medication in use has no scientifically proven merit whatsoever, beyond the occasional placebo effect. In medicine, "alternative" tends to be the politically correct term for "bullshit". On the other hand, I am all in favor of legalizing marihuana, and regardless of actual medical effects I think any sane adult has a fundamental right to decide for themselves what substances they wish to inhale, inject or eat. If the medical usefulness argument is disproven, civil libertarians will lose a tactically successful angle with which to introduce legalization.