you have bet argument about tis topic resulting in good result On 9/5/09, anjum masood <[email protected]> wrote: > > hwat you mean by drunk driving > > On 9/2/09, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> *The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving >> *by Mark R. Crovelli >> >> For people who have grown accustomed to having the government monitor, >> regulate and enforce every facet of their miserable lives, it can be very >> difficult for them to conceive of the idea of legalizing drunk >> driving<http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html>without at the >> same time picturing in their heads mangled cars, dead babies, >> and carnage generally. They have been told year after year by the government >> that created and enforces these laws, that drunk driving is one of the very >> worst crimes a man can commit, and that, were it not for the government’s >> ruthless pursuit of these dangerous criminals, there would indeed be >> unchecked slaughter in the streets. >> >> Any arguments to the contrary, claiming that we could reduce both the >> incidence <http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli28.html> and >> danger <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html> of drunk driving >> by legalizing it, appear completely absurd to these people. They dismiss >> these arguments out of hand because they have adopted the government’s >> ridiculous conception of the drunk-driving issue, which looks something like >> this: >> >> A) Drunk drivers are dangerous, and can kill other drivers >> B) The government has outlawed drunk driving, and punishes drunk driving >> ruthlessly >> Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce >> the incidence and danger of drunk driving >> >> It does not take a professor of logic, however, to see that this type of >> argument is fallacious. The conclusion simply does not follow from the >> premises. We are not entitled to conclude that the government is >> successfully reducing either the incidence or the danger of drunk driving, >> just because they have prohibited it and are mercilessly punishing >> violators. It could be the case that the government’s prohibitions and >> punishments themselves are actually exacerbating the problem rather than >> ameliorating it. >> >> The preceding point is exceedingly important, and is worth emphasizing >> with an analogous example from the so-called "War on Drugs." The federal >> government takes an analogous position with regard to drug trafficking and >> consumption, after all. The claim has always been that all the prohibitions >> and brutal punishments do reduce drug production and consumption (otherwise, >> what would be the point of the "war"?). Spokesmen for the drug warriors >> periodically appear in the news claiming that they have just busted a >> behemoth cocaine or marijuana smuggling ring, and that the bust will be a >> major blow to drug pushers and consumers. We all know what happens in the >> real world of drug production once the government cracks down on drugs in >> some way, however: the market participants adjust to the increased pressure >> by shifting their base of operation (e.g., from peaceful Caribbean >> beaches to the blood-drenched >> <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff52.html>calles of >> Mexico<http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff52.html>), >> switching to more concentrated and dangerous drugs to produce and sell to >> avoid getting caught (e.g., switching from marijuana to cocaine and heroin), >> and the more vicious risk-takers among the drug producers take market share >> away from those who fear prison and God if they, say, cut off a police >> chief’s head <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ed_1232615610>. >> >> Needless to say, the mere fact that the government has prohibited certain >> drugs, and has gone so far as to wage "war" against them, is insufficient to >> establish that the government is truly reducing drug consumption or >> production. If anything, the government’s prohibition of and "war" on drugs >> has itself caused drugs to become more potent, has created a drug gulag >> system in the United States (that is, ironically, itself rife with drugs) >> and a mafia state in >> Mexico<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico_mafias>– >> and yet has not reduced anyone’s ability to purchase coke, pot and meth in >> the slightest degree. >> >> With regard to the drug "war," and all of its obvious failures and >> disasters, no one with half a brain would think of making an argument >> claiming that the government is actually reducing drug consumption, just >> because they have made them illegal and ruthlessly punish offenders. No one >> would offer an argument, like the one above, claiming: >> >> A) Drug addicts are dangerous, and can kill or hurt themselves and >> others >> B) The government has outlawed consuming or selling drugs, and punishes >> consumers and sellers ruthlessly >> Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce >> the incidence and danger of drugs >> >> No one would make such an argument because the conclusion obviously does >> not follow from the premises. Some sort of further argument or evidence is >> necessary to establish that the prohibition is working, or else the argument >> is question-begging. And, once one takes even the slightest peek at the >> evidence (i.e., the destruction, death and incarceration that the Drug War >> has delivered to this continent, and the ease with which anyone can buy >> virtually any drug in any city, school, or prison on this continent), the >> argument falls apart immediately. >> >> The same ought to be true for what might be aptly called the "War on Drunk >> Driving." One ought not to simply assume that the government’s prohibitions >> and medieval punishments actually work to reduce drunk driving – unless >> there exist good arguments to that effect. >> >> When one looks at the arguments about the efficacy of the government’s war >> on drunk driving, however, they all point to the opposite conclusion; >> namely, that the government’s prohibition and punishments are actually >> making things worse, rather than better. For example, the government’s >> prohibitions have created incentives for drunk drivers to drive much more >> dangerously <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html> than they >> otherwise would. They have resulted in a massive loss of income and freedom >> for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans who have been >> arrested, fined and imprisoned for drunk driving without ever hurting >> anyone. They have created an interlocking structure of incentives that >> actually >> encourage drunk driving<http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli28.html>. >> They have created a blatantly hypocritical standard for driving on the >> nation’s roads – with some dangerous drivers let off with a wag of the >> finger, while others are arrested, fined and incarcerated for doing exactly >> the same thing; namely, putting other people’s lives at >> risk<http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html>. >> And they have created a police state on the nation’s roads and highways; >> with Israeli-like random checkpoints, a massive propaganda campaign to >> intimidate drivers, and mandatory removal of blood from people’s bodies. >> >> The challenge, then, for people who believe in prohibiting drunk driving >> is to show that these laws do actually reduce drunk driving. Like proponents >> of drug prohibition, they must be able to show that all of the obvious >> suffering these laws inflict, billions of lost dollars spent in waging the >> "war," loss of individual liberties, and counterproductive incentives the >> laws create have actually reduced drunk driving. >> >> For decades we have been waiting for the drug prohibitionists to give us >> some similar proof that their favored war has given us some tangible >> benefits besides millions of men in prison, ever-more potent and dangerous >> drugs, and a police state run amok. They have failed miserably. So, too, >> will the proponents of drunk-driving prohibition when we look back on >> decades of fighting a "war" against our own people, when they have never >> even hurt any other people. >> >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli33.1.html >> >> >> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
