I’m a therapist who deals with people who are anxious. Many of them are particularly anxious during this lockdown. One, John R., age 32, told me that in the late evening before bedtime he goes back and forth between the Fox News Channel and CNN, and each of them makes him angry. I suggested that he stop watching them in the late evening. He did so and now he tells me that he is less anxious and sleeps much better.
Another patient, 42-year-old Amy J., told me that she was watching Ozark late every evening. The cold cruel murders weirded her out and she had trouble sleeping. I suggested that she quit watching Ozark late at night. She followed my advice and is now sleeping better.
During this pandemic, it’s clear what the government should do. The government should ban the Fox News Channel, CNN, and showings of Ozark.
I made up the above. Does this policy proposal sound like a good idea? If not, then consider what psychoanalyst Erica Komisar wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. In her op/ed, “In Lockdown, Pot and Booze Are Bad News,” May 13 (print), Ms. Komisar tells of two clients, one of whom drank every day with friends for “Zoomtails” and the other of whom smoked pot every day. Both had trouble sleeping and felt increasingly anxious. Ms. Komisar wisely suggested that they stop and they did. The results: both are doing much better. Good for her and good for them.
Then she writes:
States ought to curtail the sale of these substances during this stressful time. Instead, almost all have classified liquor stores as “essential,” and some have done the same with marijuana dispensaries. Some officials have argued that keeping liquor stores open keeps alcoholics from ending up at emergency rooms with withdrawal symptoms. But the added risks of alcohol use are far greater.
Pennsylvania closed its state liquor stores when it went into lockdown. Other states should follow its lead.
I’m not a fan of comments on WSJ articles. Even when the comments are on my own op/eds and are on my side of the issue, they are, with some brilliant exceptions, typically mediocre. But the comments on her piece were among the best I’ve ever seen on a WSJ op/ed. Here’s one:
Ms. Komisar’s first story actually argues against her prescription of state-mandated closures. Her patient voluntarily modified behavior without coercive action by state government.
The urge to control others for their own good is one of the strongest urges many people have. I see this a lot in areas where professionals have expertise. They see a problem in their area and they want to dictate to everyone so that this problem will be reduced.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Z
May 21 2020 at 4:42pm
I’m a mild drinker and I find an occasional glass of wine helps ease anxiety and makes it easier for me to sleep. Komisar’s preferred policy would be the opposite helpful for my mental health. The heterogeneity of human experience favors ‘keyhole solutions’ to these kinds of problems. The most ‘keyhole’ solution is for individuals to deal with things according to their own circumstances. It’s not perfect, some people have poor judgment, but this therapist is basing her broad suppression of liquor sales on what is almost certainly a non-representative sample. She sees people trying to work out serious problems, such as addictions. But for each such case, there are many for whom alcohol (or marijuana) is a net positive in their life. It just happens that very few responsible drinkers are willing to pay a couple hundred dollars to spend an hour telling her about how they know their limits, are doing fine, and have everything under control, just to give her some perspective on the matter.
David Henderson
May 21 2020 at 5:02pm
You wrote:
LOL. Well said, as is the rest of your comment.
David Seltzer
May 21 2020 at 5:20pm
Suppress liquor sales? I thought the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed.
Jon Murphy
May 21 2020 at 5:58pm
We all handle stress in our own ways. Some handle it healthily, some do not. When I was younger, I drank and ate a lot to cope (I once gained 40 lbs over the course of two months during a particularly stressful period in my old job). Five Guys Burgers and Fries, a milkshake and a soda, and two or three vodka tonics a night was not out of the question.
If she were to have things her way, probably everything would get banned or severely curtailed. Some things might get cheered (tobacco, liquor, marijuana, pornography). Some things would be detrimental (exercise). Some would be impossible to enforce (reading, video games, etc).
It is one thing to individually tailor solutions. It’s a whole other beast to then apply those to people at large.
As an example, lately I’ve not been sleeping due to re-reading some of my fantasy series (The Witcher by Andrzej Sapkowski and The Legend of Drizzt by R.A. Salvatore). Some of this is stress-related and some of it is celebratory. Should we ban the reading of fantasy novels? Impose a mandatory bed curfew?
Phil H
May 21 2020 at 8:55pm
To be fair, I think this mischaracterises the structure of her argument a bit. In context, it’s not that two people suffered harm, therefore X should be banned. It’s “a lot of changes are happening in our lives; what should the balance of those changes look like?”
But DH’s point remains solid: evidence of harm does not on its own constitute an argument for a government restrictions.
Jerry Brown
May 21 2020 at 11:45pm
Isn’t the typical comment always mediocre? (I understand mine might be below average on average). Statistics was not my forte though. Sorry. I’m just trying to have fun when I can during this thing 🙂
john hare
May 22 2020 at 4:22am
My comments often are at a tangent to the main point as I seem to usually have a bit different perspective. From the other direction, I am quite certain mediocre would be a generous evaluation. I persist because it is part of me being an info-junkie, and because on occasion I contribute something useful. If I were selling my thoughts instead of giving them here, I would be more conscientious about content.
Lawrence
May 22 2020 at 7:27am
Thanks for this excellent reminder of how civilized people treat each other and help each other.
Thomas Hutcheson
May 22 2020 at 8:33am
The arguments for “paternalistic” coercion (close liquor stores for the good of the drinkers) is different from “altruistic” coercion (issue SAHO to prevent the coerced from harming others). This is not to say that SAHO are the most cost effective way to prevent harm.
Vivian Darkbloom
May 23 2020 at 10:37am
“The urge to control others for their own good is one of the strongest urges many people have. I see this a lot in areas where professionals have expertise. They see a problem in their area and they want to dictate to everyone so that this problem will be reduced.”
Is this like a handful of economists trying to overrule the Congress and the President so that the “problem” allegedly caused by the Robinson-Patman Act would be eliminated?
David Henderson
May 23 2020 at 10:56am
You ask:
No. What the handful of economists and legal scholars are doing is trying to reduce control. Big difference.
Vivian Darkbloom
May 23 2020 at 2:30pm
A handful of economists “seeing a problem in their area” and deciding that a law passed by a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected President should not be enforced is not itself an example of “control” by those economists?
Jon Murphy
May 23 2020 at 4:12pm
I don’t see how you think it’s an increase in control. Please explain.
Mark Z
May 24 2020 at 4:59pm
The objection made here does not seem to be to the overruling of majority will by an expert, but rather the overruling of individual choice by an expert. Right or wrong, it’s perfectly consistent to oppose both expert opinion- and majority-will-based restrictions on individual choice.
Dave Everson
May 26 2020 at 1:32am
I was going to comment but now I am anxious that it won’t meet standards. Let’s ban comments.
Comments are closed.