No, not trying to be funny.  I was gabberflasted when I read this article from The Atlantic, which points out that in the past several years the giant grocery / cheap stuff firm has been developing a sophisticated, heterogeneous, localized network of produce suppliers.  This has been a boon for small regional farmers, many of whom are beginning to plant more varieties of fruits and vegetables suited to their respective local ecosystems and which can be rapidly plugged into the Wal-Mart supply chain.  As a result, fresher produce for the buyer, expanded markets for “mom-n-pop” growers, and way, way less carbon output, since instead of trucking the product from wherever a giant ag firm grows it (e.g. apples in Washington, oranges in Florida, cranberries in Jersey) to all the grocery stores across the country, Wally World is selling local food, much of it organic.  (Remember, many of our contemporary notions of where a particular plant “naturally” flourishes are products of the corporate agribusiness model, which prioritizes centralization and standardization.)  Anyway, this trend constitutes a revolution in the American food economy, a giant move away from the factory-farm model which has dominated since World War II.  Wal-Mart’s intentions seem genuinely non-evil (of course, they also realized how much  money is to be made—mountains of it—from satisfying the increasing American demand for fresh local food).  Now they just need to start hocking artisanal handguns.

-TGR

From the libertarian magazine Reason, a short TV program on the politics of marijuana in California.  The cultural topography is looking greener.

Ever wonder what would happen to the United States’ ghastly drug-addiction problem if we (or rather, the relevant authorities) treated it like a medical, psychological, and sociological conundrum instead of a criminal blight?  If we tried to treat and manage addiction instead of giving addicts long prison sentences?  If we didn’t spend hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of man-hours on draconian law enforcement that has led to little besides cheaper, more abundant narcotics?  If we looked at the problem–and as cautiously pro-drug as I am, I realize it is a capital-p Problem on a whole lot of personal and sociocultural and medical levels–and said, “Hey, we’ve been pursuing one strategy for 40 years, and it hasn’t worked at all; maybe we should try something else”?

Western Europe and Canada have been taking saner, less punitive approaches for some time now.  All sorts of crazy liberal public-health stuff, like needle exchanges and free rehab (instead of years in prison) and aggressive disease testing and treatment.  These more “lenient” (read: less insane, anti-factual, and cruel) strategies have led to–gasp–lower addiction rates, fewer overdoses, radically diminished rates of HIV and Hep-C infection, and less  violent crime (on the part of both addicts desperate for money for a fix & the networks of international thugs who supply the product).  For a good look at how such policies are playing out, read Matthew Powers’ “The Vancouver Experiment,” a multi-part report from the ‘couve that Slate is publishing this week.  Without pretending that anyone has found a magical cure for drug abuse and the misery and loneliness that both causes and attends it, Powers does a superb job of demonstrating what happens when government begins forming policy around, you know, facts, instead of hysterical, ignorant fear.

-TGR

Oh, good: exercising does nothing to reduce or reverse the effects of drinking.  I can only assume this doesn’t apply to smoking.

-TGR