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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
