There's a closely related area to the war on drugs in which the State has assaulted our rights - laws that forbid drunk driving. Now the feds declare that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.
But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.
Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.
Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.
This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.
In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police or more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.
Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.
To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, the government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood-even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.
There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.
Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgements about what we are allegedly likely to do.
What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.
We need to stop this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g., he has red hair.
Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.
What i find from the original posters comment was all of these crimes are gender related. It is mostly men that are being in the bad light.
Take for example on this cases:
@Manspreading: a man who is occupying 2 spots, because he has too much crap in between his legs? I've seen many woman do that, yet nobody complains? Anyone seen these in buses? A woman and all her shopping spread in 3 seats?
@Insane Law Professor: Why should battered woman be above the law, but NOT a battered man? Or what about an Emotionally Abused Man? What about the Financially abuse man?
A woman can easily find a shelter if she is abuse in most cities. Try finding a shelter for abuse MAN? Let me know if you can find any city that has shelter for abuse man? "not just physical abuse, but financially abused, emotionally abused"...all those that make a woman qualifies for a shelter.
My highlight on the issue: If you are abuse (man or woman), shooting your attacker should be self defense (however criminal law defines self defense), or better yet, break the neck and kill the abuser slowly... I as a woman is capable of defending myself...so...why the crazy gender bias laws? Just a tool for those suckers who escape from rehab and call foul?
I have experience on being the caretaker of woman who are victims of violence. By all means, they need protection, justice, care and love. But they should not be above the law..NEVER.
@Male student - classic case in university. Sad but true. Stupid Bitch.
Even I don't have a penis, I want my voice counted to have awareness on the Issues of Men. I stand by the crusade to have a close look of the issues that men are facing today: The Need for Men's Shelter, the Need for Men's Only Gym, the Need for Men's Support Group facing Family Law Issues, and most of all, the recognition that men of today's society need more support more than ever.
As our family ties collapse, men are face with social isolation, emotional abuse, financial abuse with no place to go. No city (as far as I know) has offered service for men by men. It is not segregation...it is giving men options to be just around men (sorry bitches).... just to have peace and quite. Just to be at peace with himself.
I am advocating these for my brothers, for my adopted brothers (those who serve), and to my children. It is my hope that through education and social awareness that men will be able to cope to find fellow men, for support when they are going through rough times.
I'm not sure if this will happen in my lifetime, but I hope the conversation goes on.
This video represents my thought on helping men. Why I am not a feminist?
@feedme. Yes it is depressing but if we ignore it and never acknowledge the things wrong they will never be corrected. It will be like the world being run by BCART!!!!!!!
Comments
But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.
Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.
Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.
This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.
In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police or more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.
Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.
To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, the government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood-even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.
There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.
Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgements about what we are allegedly likely to do.
What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.
We need to stop this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g., he has red hair.
Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.
Take for example on this cases:
@Manspreading: a man who is occupying 2 spots, because he has too much crap in between his legs?
I've seen many woman do that, yet nobody complains?
Anyone seen these in buses? A woman and all her shopping spread in 3 seats?
@Insane Law Professor: Why should battered woman be above the law, but NOT a battered man? Or what about an Emotionally Abused Man? What about the Financially abuse man?
A woman can easily find a shelter if she is abuse in most cities. Try finding a shelter for abuse MAN? Let me know if you can find any city that has shelter for abuse man?
"not just physical abuse, but financially abused, emotionally abused"...all those that make a woman qualifies for a shelter.
My highlight on the issue: If you are abuse (man or woman), shooting your attacker should be self defense (however criminal law defines self defense), or better yet, break the neck and kill the abuser slowly... I as a woman is capable of defending myself...so...why the crazy gender bias laws?
Just a tool for those suckers who escape from rehab and call foul?
I have experience on being the caretaker of woman who are victims of violence. By all means, they need protection, justice, care and love. But they should not be above the law..NEVER.
@Male student - classic case in university. Sad but true. Stupid Bitch.
Even I don't have a penis, I want my voice counted to have awareness on the Issues of Men. I stand by the crusade to have a close look of the issues that men are facing today: The Need for Men's Shelter, the Need for Men's Only Gym, the Need for Men's Support Group facing Family Law Issues, and most of all, the recognition that men of today's society need more support more than ever.
As our family ties collapse, men are face with social isolation, emotional abuse, financial abuse with no place to go. No city (as far as I know) has offered service for men by men. It is not segregation...it is giving men options to be just around men (sorry bitches).... just to have peace and quite. Just to be at peace with himself.
I am advocating these for my brothers, for my adopted brothers (those who serve), and to my children. It is my hope that through education and social awareness that men will be able to cope to find fellow men, for support when they are going through rough times.
I'm not sure if this will happen in my lifetime, but I hope the conversation goes on.
This video represents my thought on helping men. Why I am not a feminist?