Ebola In America: Day 7 
As polling data revealed a growing lack of confidence in big government, government officials convened at the White House yesterday and once again reassured us that an Ebola outbreak in America was highly unlikely.

President Obama announced that there would be additional screenings for passengers traveling to the United States. But the screening process clearly needs revamping. 

Elizabeth Cohen, a medical reporter for CNN, just returned from Liberia. She was "shocked" and "horrified" by how lax the screening was at the airport. After identifying herself as a journalist who was covering the Ebola outbreak, the screening agent simply told her, "You need to watch yourself for signs of Ebola." But he couldn't identify those signs for her. 

Keep in mind that screening is not foolproof. It will only detect the people who are showing obvious symptoms. It will not keep out people like Thomas Duncan, who was infected, but showed no symptoms while he was traveling. 

Meanwhile, Europe is now grappling with its first case of Ebola. A nurse in Spain, who was treating Ebola victims from Sierra Leone, has become infected. It is not clear how she got the disease, but concerns are being raised about the protective suits used at the Madrid hospital where she worked. Thirty people are being monitored for possible exposure. 

One European health official warned, "Such imported cases and similar events as have happened in Spain will happen also in the future, most likely. It is quite unavoidable. . .that such incidents will happen in the future because of the extensive travel both from Europe to the affected countries and the other way around." 

That raises the obvious question: Why continue to permit such extensive travel? 

CDC: Centers For Disinformation Control 
In a recent column entitled "The Case for Panic," Matthew Continetti contrasts a number of recent high-profile government failures against Washington's repeated assurances that all is well. He writes, "It is not Ebola I am afraid of. It is our government's ability to deal with Ebola." 

Continetti is on to something. Let me just briefly summarize what we've been told. 

Ebola is not easy to contract. (That is probably an accurate statement now, but viruses mutate.) 

To become infected, you must have physical contact with an Ebola victim. (What kind of physical contact? Intimate or incidental?) 

An Ebola victim is not contagious until he shows symptoms. This is why airport screeners are monitoring for fevers. (We know that in some cases victims without fevers are symptomatic.) 

You don't need to worry if you are in a crowded place like a plane, elevator or large public gathering. (Really?)

With those assertions in mind, take two minutes to watch this exchange between CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden and CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. 

Now we're learning that "direct contact" means coming within three feet of someone. Feeling any better? 

Here's more disinformation from the CDC Director. On his blog yesterday, Dr. Frieden wrote:
 

"I have been asked whether we should stop travel to Liberia. The answer is no: to keep Americans and people in non-affected countries safe, we must continue to work to support efforts to stop the spread of Ebola in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. . . .Involuntary quarantine and isolation of communities and regions within countries will also backfire. . . . Isolating communities also increases people's distrust of government, making them less likely to co-operate to help stop the spread of Ebola."

No one is suggesting that we stop experts and medical personnel from helping people in the afflicted countries. But non-essential travel should be stopped. 

What are we doing with infected individuals? We are using quarantines and isolation. That's how you stop epidemics from spreading. 

As for increasing people's distrust of government, nearly 60% of Americans support a temporary travel ban. Nothing increases distrust of government more than when government bureaucrats ignore common sense and the people they supposedly serve! 

Speaking Of Ignoring The People. . . 
Pro-family Americans are dismayed that the Supreme Court refused to consider state appeals of laws upholding traditional marriage. By default, the Supreme Court permitted lower court rulings that overturned state votes in favor of normal marriage to take effect. So, as headlines have blared, same-sex marriages will begin in five states where the people never would have voted for it. 

I am extremely disappointed that this is happening, but I also believe we were in a no-win situation. The alternative would have been for the Supreme Court to take the cases. Unfortunately, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we would have faced a 5-to-4 decision forcing same-sex marriage on every state in the union. 

We know four liberal justices want that. And I believe that Justice Anthony Kennedy, given his previous decisions in Lawrence and Romer, would have sided with the liberals against the four conservative justices. 

But yesterday's disappointment is not permanent. By not taking the case, the court has not issued a final definitive ruling. There is still a chance that a future Supreme Court majority might decide that voters do have the right to make their own decisions on the matter. 

Just Say No 
Liberals have mocked every conservative president who tried to encourage people to avoid using marijuana. More and more, liberal politicians have openly embraced marijuana. In fact, some on the left think it is their "secret weapon." 

Infected with the disease of "pollism," many Republican leaders have lost their voice on the drug issue because they've been told they can't attract younger and libertarian voters if they oppose marijuana. But this really isn't a difficult issue to win a debate on. 

The results of a 20-year study on the long-term effects of marijuana use scream for us to stop this nonsense. Professor Wayne Hall, a professor of addiction policy at King's College London, said, "If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin or alcohol." Here are the key findings of his research: 
 

• One in six teenagers who regularly smoke the drug becomes dependent on it.
   
• One in ten adults who regularly smoke the drug becomes dependent on it, and those who use it are more likely to go on to use harder drugs. 
   
• Cannabis users do worse at school. Heavy use in adolescence appears to impair intellectual development. 
   
• Cannabis doubles the risk of developing psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. 
   
• Driving after smoking cannabis doubles the risk of a car crash, a risk which increases substantially if the driver has also had a drink. 

  With all the problems confronting us today, are we really plagued by too few co-workers high on pot? Are there really not enough stoned drivers on the roads? Are our kids doing so well in school that we can afford to risk impairing their mental development? 

  Of course the answer is no. But in a culture that increasingly embraces fads and rejects reliable standards of right and wrong, it's not surprising that some politicians just can't say no to bad ideas.