The Death of Shame

Bill Bennett, last seen abjectly apologizing for a gambling habit he initially insisted was nobody's business but his own, will be featured at an October conference sponsored by the prohibitionist propaganda mill known as the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Bennett and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) are scheduled to debate drug policy with former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, now dean of the Howard University Law School.

If Bennett had stuck to his original position on gambling--that, like drinking, it's an innocent pleasure unless "you can't handle it"--he might have some explaining to do: Why isn't the same thing true of pot smoking, for example? But as a confessed slots junkie, he can now extrapolate from his own lack of self-control to the population at large, which should only strengthen his prohibitionist convictions.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Perhaps Mr. Rangel's biggest supporters are not fans of legalization becasue they make too much money on current distribution networks?

How else to explain why the Libertarian who ran aginst him last year (on a MJ legaliztion platform) was beaten so dramatically?

[Steve in CO]

I am sure former governer Johnson and former Mayor Schmoke's comments will be given wide media attention .... okay, so I can dream, can't I?

Bennett should be confronted by families that have been destroyed by the policies he has promoted. Would love to see that bastard squirm. Again, dreaming, aren't I?

[Thorley Winston]

How else to explain why the Libertarian who ran aginst him last year (on a MJ legaliztion platform) was beaten so dramatically?

As opposed to the smashing victories Libertarians have had in other Congressional elections?

[fyodor]

Flapjack,

I draw the line at whatever scares me, i.e. whatever I don't and no friends do that somehow seems dangerous and only appealing to lowlifes, that's what should be illegal!
heh

[Russ]

"Pot smoking yes, but what about heroin or crack? Just trying to start a disucssion - where do we draw the line?"

"We" don't draw the line. You draw your line, I draw mine.

[joe]

OK, Russ, I'll bite. What about driving while drunk (not MADD "drunk," actually drunk)? Do we each get to draw our own line there, too, or are some behaviors so dangerous that they require sanction, even if they cause their harm indirectly?

[Pedro]

Isn't driving your car all over the road already a crime? How about hitting someone, or hitting their property? Why do we need 2 laws for the same crime?

[Mo]

I'll bite joe. If you have a BAC of .3, drive in a straight line, follow all the laws of the road, you shouldn't have to worry about a checkpoint to pull you over. However, if you are drunk, on a cell phone, asleep, eating, getting a bj, &c and can't stay in your lane, are running red light or being a menace on the road in general, you should be slapped with a big fat fine. If you're driving dangerously, why should it matter what the reason is?

[joe]

Because driving when you're souced is seriously dangerous, and is likely to lead to driving your car all over the road, hitting someone, or hitting their property.

Why do we have to wait until someone's dead?

[joe]

Mo,

A cop watches a guy who can barely walk get into a car, just barely avoid hitting another car on his way out, and pull onto the road. The cop shouldn't stop him?

[fyodor]

Joe,

I'll agree with Mo. But notice he says that if someone is demonstrating clearly dangerous behavior, then he's fair game for the law. I presume that would apply to your example of just barely avoiding hitting another car. If drunken driving laws are basically used as an excuse to nail someone with something concrete when he's demonstrated clearly dangerous behavior, few but the most pure libbers (Kevin?) would take umbrage. But that's sure different than setting up checkpoints and pulling people over randomly and busting someone because of some arbitrary level.

As to "why wait until someone's dead?" The logical conclusion of that argument is to lock people up based on profiles that show they're statistically more likely to murder someone. Hey, why wait till someone's dead, right?

[R.C. Dean]

The reason we "wait until someone is dead" is because, broadly speaking, it is hard to say that a crime has been committed if no one has been hurt. Note that sitting behind the wheel of a car with a skinful does not hurt anyone - the harm comes when you smack your car into someone else's person or property, which is already against the law.

Given that black folks commit a disproportionate number of the violent crimes in the US, the "hey, why wait until someone's dead?" argument may take you places you don't want to go.

[joe]

1. An individual is responsible for his actions, such as getting drunk and driving a car. It is appropriate to hold someone responsible for the behavior she freely takes part in. Being black (or male, by the way, an even better predictor of violent behavior) is not.

2. Being drunk and behind the wheel of a moving car makes you, individually, more dangerous. Being black does make anyone more of a threat, on an individual level.

[fyodor]

Joe,

"2. Being drunk and behind the wheel of a moving car makes you, individually, more dangerous."

Why? Prove that's true without resorting to statistics.

You're right, however, that R.C. and I are on the wrong track with the profiling thing (to a degree). More to the point, why not outlaw ALL automobile use? Driving is an action that someone freely engages in and which makes that person a danger to others. Oh, but we don't attach the VALUE JUDGMENT to ostensibly responsible driving that we attach to drunken driving, even though all driving is clearly dangerous.

[Russ]

Joe,

"OK, Russ, I'll bite. What about driving while drunk (not MADD "drunk," actually drunk)? Do we each get to draw our own line there, too, or are some behaviors so dangerous that they require sanction, even if they cause their harm indirectly?"

When you have your own roads, you can dictate the conditions for who drives on them and how.

[Mo]

"A cop watches a guy who can barely walk get into a car, just barely avoid hitting another car on his way out, and pull onto the road. The cop shouldn't stop him?"

joe,
Sounds like reckless driving to me. If the guy can't demonstrate that he is in a condition to drive home, then by all means throw him in the drunk tank. I'd want the guy just barely avoiding hitting a car to be pulled over if he had a fist full of french fries or was on his cell phone. These people would be allowed to drive home after a ticket and a hefty fine. If the guy drives safely, does it matter what's in his bloodstream?

I won't go as far as fyodor and say that all driving should be illegal. However, how would you feel if they had weariness checkpoints on the road at 4 AM. If you couldn't demonstrate that you were awake enough to drive, off to prison with you. Only driving 5 blocks? Too bad, being tired and behind the wheel of a moving car makes you, individually, more dangerous.

Cripes, I can't believe I'm defending drunk driving.

[Russ]

To me, the issue here is whether impaired (by any factor) driving constitutes a criminal offence, since on it's own, it is a victimless crime.

Carried further, should any traffic offence be a criminal offence? Is the civil justice system not sufficient for awarding damages? Do we need law enforcement officers serving in a traffic rule enforcement role?

A more simple approach would be this: Whoever owns the road will permit (license) you to operate a vehicle on their roads under certain conditions. They have a right to ensure that you comply with those conditions by having their employees (not police officers) observe road users and perform spot checks. Failure to comply with the conditions of use will result in forfeiture of your permit. Operating a vehicle without a permit constitutes trespassing which is a criminal offence.

Drive drunk... you lose your license. Drive without a licence... you go to jail. Injure someone while driving (impaired or not)... you go to court and sit in the defendant chair facing a charge of double damages. No police involvement required.

[fyodor]

Mo,

Um, just for clarification, I'm not actually advocating the criminalization of all driving. I brought up the notion as an example of the logical conclusion of Joe's "why wait for someone to die" logic but incorporating the willful behavior (sober driving) that was lacking in the example of profiling (although profiling still satisfies the implications of that logic). Of course, my example also begs the questions: How dangerous does a behavior have to be to be criminalized? How do we determine such danger? I believe that while drunken driving is statistically more dangerous than sober driving, the primary reason it's illegal is based on a value judgment. However many people are killed by sober drivers, sober driving is still considered "okay."

[Mo]

fyodor,
I understood that, but I wanted to use an example a tad less extreme that still had the same outcome.

[Kevin Carson]

C'mon, fyodor, why are you picking on me?

A group of people has the same identical rights of self-defense as an individual. So like an individual, an association has to use its own judgement as to whether a particular behavior presents enough of a "clear and present danger" of harm to impose restraint. I'm certainly open to the idea of some blood alcohol restraints on the same grounds I'd support taking down a guy that was pointing a gun at me.

Of course, people who get stopped and identified with high blood alcohol levels are generally targeted for erratic driving in the first place, joe. And I certainly don't support roadblock fishing expeditions without probable cause--not even if Charles Manson's escaped. So to some degree it's a moot point.

[Flapjack]

Pot smoking yes, but what about heroin or crack? Just trying to start a disucssion - where do we draw the line?

[joe]

I'm disappointed in Rangel. He needs to realize that 1) the gangsters are a lot more dangerous than the users, and 2) there would be a lot fewer people funding the gangsters in his neighborhoods, if they could score at a legal head shop.

[Gary Coleman]

WOOOOHOOOOO!! the funs back on in Cali! Election only 2 weeks away.

[Eric]

Charles Rangel is the House's answer to Joe Biden: the numbskulled, semi-literate Democratic chamber idiot who never fails to be wrong about everything.

[Hank]

Flapjack -

We don't

[thoreau]

On drunk driving:

OK, first, I'm not a big fan of random roadblocks to find drunk drivers. But as Kevin pointed out, most drunk drivers are caught when pulled over for other offenses.

Why should a drunk pulled over some traffic offense suffer a harsher punishment than the sober person driving recklessly? I don't have a good answer that can be derived from some libertarian axiom in the same way that mathematicians can derive the 4-color Theorem from some postulates. But I don't really care. Drunk driving is an extremely dangerous activity that endangers the lives of others. A person who drives drunk is playing Russian roullette with other peoples' lives. I don't have any problem imposing penalties on those who play Russian roullette with other peoples' lives. And if some people get punished more harshly than others for endangering the lives of innocent people, my attitude is to increase the punishment for the others, not reduce the punishment for drunk driving.

Knowing how wacky we libertarians can be, there will be 3 objections, undoubtedly:

1) What about the person who has a high blood alcohol level but (for whatever reason) isn't driving erratically?

Answer: He won't be caught unless the police are doing random checks at roadblocks. And random roadblocks already pose some substantial probable cause questions. I see no need to undermine the solid case against random checks by hitching it to the cart of the anomalous person who (allegedly) can drive safely with lots of alcohol in his blood stream.

2) Why punish the drunk driver (or any other erratic driver) who hasn't actually hurt any other people? Isn't it an axiom of libertarianism that people should only be punished if they hurt other people?

Answer: Say I put a single bullet in a revolver, spin the chamber, point it at your head, and pull the trigger. There's an 83.333% chance I won't hurt you if the gun can hold 6 bullets. If you survive my gamble, will you refrain from calling the cops? I think not.

Or, say I walk out into the street and start firing my gun randomly. If none of the bullets actually hit any people, and they don't damage any property, will you refrain from calling the cops? I think not.

By the same token, somebody who goes out onto the road and drives without any regard for the safety of other people deserves to be punished. The odds of him harming another person might be lower than 1/6, but the odds are still large enough that the driver has no business being on the road.

3) Why single out alcohol over other impairments? Aren't we being puritans here?

Answer: California doesn't single out alcohol. A friend of mine got a DUI conviction for driving while taking a medication (prescribed by his doctor) that impaired his driving ability. He hit a parked car, his liability insurance reimbursed the driver, and my friend has learned to enjoy buses and bikes. Any person driving while under the influence of a substance that impairs his driving ability and makes him a threat to others can be punished under California law.

[joe]

Those of you arguing in favor of the right to endanger others are doing an excellent job demonstrating the difference between liberty and freedom.

Drunk driving laws make driving safer by reducing hazardous drivers (see overall and alcohol related accident statistics from 1980 to present). Because the roads are safer, people are 1) not being harmed while going about their business, and 2) more confident that they can go about their business without harm, and therefore more likely to go about more business.

Infringing on the liberty of drunk drivers enhances the freedom of everyone else.

[joe]

Russ, the government owns the roads, and dictates the conditions of their use, just like any other owner.

thoreau, you're point about Russian roulette is why I brought up the example. If a certain behavior increases the risk of harm to others, it is appropriate to sanction that behavior. This would apply to the taking of certain substances, if it can be shown that taking them does actually increase the risk to other people. Now, showing that is a different matter.

[Anonymous]

"He hit a parked car, his liability insurance reimbursed the driver, "

...and his insurance rates undoubtedly went up. This in itself would probably prompt your friend from not driving while under the influence of the substance, and if it didn't, his next incident would make his rates skyrocket and I think he'd get the point. Instead, the government got its hands into the whole thing to make a few extra bucks for themselves.

Anybody who thinks the government gives one shit about the safety of others has obviously not been through the system.