🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Aug17.164727.18108@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:

>Do you mean ILLEGAL or UNCONSTITIONAL or WRONG.  I know it's semantics,
>but each means something different.  Snorting cocaine doesn't violate the
>rights of others, but it is illegal.  Why, I think because of the
>secondary effects a habitual drug can have on people (ie. crime,
>hospitalization, etc).

These are debatable reasons.  The vast majority of drug-related crime
is actually prohibition-related crime.  I realize that this is a side
issue to the discussion at hand (the one about the reasons behind laws),
but I can't let this mention of the drug laws go by without comment.

Fact is, prohibiting people from snorting cocaine may be legal, but
it is wrong, and possibly (again debatable - this depends upon the
judge involved) unconstitutional.  If some not-too-bright person
chooses to snort cocaine, that's his business, and the fact of 
snorting cocaine doesn't violate anyone else's rights in any way.
Now if that person decided to operate a motor vehicle while under
the influence of the drug, then he is guilty of violating the rights
of others.  The violation is not his being under the influence of hte
drug.  It is of driving while IMPAIRED.  In the same manner, it ought
to be an identical crime to drive when too tired, too.  This is not
a matter of chemicals in the bloodstream, but one of impairment.
Moreover, there are excellent tests of impairment which don't involve
chemical testing.  Unfortunately, people think that the stuff in one's
blood is more important then their level of impairment.  Things like
laws which impose limits on blood alcohol content are quite 
inconsistent.  I, for example, who almost never drink at all, would
be much more impaired than someone with a greater tolerance even if
we had the same BAC.  The BAC is irrelevant.  It is the impairment 
which is relevant.

I suppose it could be argued that the BAC is the closest thing we
have to a reasonable measure of impairment.  I would strongly
disagree.  There are a variety of impairment testers out there.
I'll dig up some references if anyone is interested.

>Also every law has a foundation to support it's enactment.  Many laws
>are based on the constitution.  Some say the constitution bas based on
>the Magna Carta.  But at somepoint, if you go back far enough, you will
>find some moral view behind the law.  Saying it's illegal to murder
>based on the Constitution is not sufficient.  That makes an assumption
>that the constitutional was formed apart from a moral view.  If you
>study history, I think you would not come to that conclusion.  If someone
>showed that parts of the constitution was based on the founders
>religious/moral view, would that nullify the constitution to you?

I believe that once the law is enacted, the views of those who 
proposed it or supported it are no longer really relevant.  At that
point, it is not a matter of being a "law because of ...".  It is 
simply a law.  If the law is not a good one, or perhaps it violates
other higher laws (like the fourth amendment, for example, as 
civil forfeiture does), then the law ought to be repealed, not on
the basis of why it was enacted, but on the basis that it is not
a good or reasonable or even legal law.

--D
-- 
David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)      ***      What .signature?