Be a Patriot. Don't Hoard Cipro!

• Share

The government doesn't want you to stock up on Cipro, the antibiotic treatment for anthrax. Officials emphasize that your risk of getting anthrax is very small. They promise that Cipro or other equally effective drugs will be available if needed. They warn of rare but dangerous side effects. This is all patently disingenuous. No one has any idea how many people might ultimately be exposed to anthrax. And why are we supposed to shrug off the allegedly tiny risk of getting anthrax but worry profoundly about the tiny risk of side effects from Cipro--except that both attitudes support the conclusion that you shouldn't buy Cipro?

INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS Map: Hunting Osama Map: Nukes Pipeline Interactive: Taliban P.O.W. Revolt More Graphics Tora Bora Nukes Pipeline Taliban Revolt Last Bastions Women & Islam No Refuge Taliban on the Run Afghan Caves Mood of the Nation Mazar-I-Sharif Terrorist Timeline Al-Qaeda Suspects Flu/Anthrax Sharing Secrets Al-Qaeda's World Ground War 11.4.01 Bush Team Grades Bioterror Threats War in Winter Workplace Safety Afghan Targets Anthrax Pathogen A Ground War An Uneasy Ally Targets Hit Search & Destroy Firepower & Food Frozen Assets Safety Guide Mideast Leaders Agents of Death Afghanistan Military Buildup Terrorist Cells Our Weapons Deadly Paths Twin Terrors   CNN.com Latest news: War Against Terror RECENT COVER STORY Closing In Dec. 24, 2001 Past Issues Taliban Last Days Dec. 17, 2001 ----------------- Lifting the Veil Dec. 3, 2001 ----------------- Hunt for bin Laden Nov. 26, 2001 ----------------- Thanksgiving 2001 Nov. 19, 2001 ----------------- Inside Al-Qaeda Nov. 12, 2001 ----------------- Defender In Chief Nov. 5, 2001 ----------------- Going In Oct. 29, 2001 ----------------- The Fear   Factor Oct. 22, 2001 ----------------- Facing   the Fury Oct. 15, 2001 ----------------- How Real   Is the Threat? Oct. 8, 2001 ----------------- Life on the   Home Front Oct. 1, 2001 ----------------- One Nation,   Indivisible Sept. 24, 2001 ----------------- Day of Infamy Sept. 14, 2001   PHOTO ESSAYS Kabul Unveiled Taliban on the Run More Photos >>> MORE STORIES Where's OBL: Letter from Tora Bora Anthrax: Where the Investigation Stands TIME/CNN POLL: Americans Standing By Bush's War More Stories >>>

It may even be true that other drugs in plentiful supply work just as well for anthrax as Cipro does. If so, there's no reason to hoard Cipro but also no reason people shouldn't hoard Cipro if they want to. Whether valid or not, the government's own concern about a Cipro shortage is why the government wants to persuade us there's no cause for concern about a Cipro shortage. That, plus the worry that germs develop resistance to antibiotics that are used promiscuously.

The risk of scarcity and the risk of reduced effectiveness are both excellent arguments for discouraging people with no known exposure to anthrax from stockpiling Cipro. So why are these reasons downplayed in favor of others that make less sense? Answer: the dubious ones involve risks to you as an individual, whereas the good ones involve risks to Americans as a society. Cipro is a classic example of the democratic dilemma known as "the problem of the commons." This refers to situations in which we would all be better off if we all did one thing but each of us is individually better off by doing the opposite. Cipro is most likely to be available for anyone who needs it if nobody hoards it, but hoarding is the best guarantee that you and your family will have it if needed.

The problem of the commons is inherent and perennial in any democracy, but it has been more severe in ours during the past quarter-century because of the near universal denigration of government, politics and politicians. The assumption that the government was some monstrous other--not the expression of our collective will--became axiomatic, unchallengeable (you might even say politically correct). This made it nearly impossible to persuade the citizenry to trade short-term self-interest for the long-term interest of society.

Now polls are showing that respect for government--and even for politicians--is rising as people contemplate the heroism of cops and fire fighters--government workers all--on Sept. 11. As we are forced to revise our low estimation of pols from President Bush on down. As it dawns on us that defeating terrorism is not a task that can be privatized or turned over to the states. But will all this newfound appreciation last if it requires people to give up more than a few minutes talking to a pollster?

The real reason you shouldn't stockpile Cipro is simple: it's unpatriotic. In America we do not exalt the nation over the individual or the family. But you and--yes--your family owe this one small thing to your country, your fellow citizens and their families. Our soldiers are risking their lives in a large way. You can risk yours in this small way. Never in any living person's lifetime--not even during World War II--has every American's personal security (rather than an abstraction called national security) been at stake the way it is today. Good Americans shouldn't undermine this campaign to make everybody--including you--a lot safer by trying to make you and yours a little bit safer than everyone else. Yet even in the midst of a nationwide flag-waving orgy, this is an argument our government and political leaders don't make. They apparently believe that even dubious appeals to self-interest are more likely to work than valid appeals to concern for the common good.

This puts all the flaggery in an unflattering light. We have an awfully easy nation to be patriotic in. If you want to help the war effort, says the President, go out and spend money. Meanwhile he and the loyal opposition will decide whether defeating Osama bin Laden requires Americans to swallow a tax cut or suffer new infusions of federal spending. If this is what you can do for your country, then ask not what your country can do for you. It's hard to imagine how the government could coddle us more.