Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Europe’s Public Health Crowd Hunkers Down to Fight the Scourge of “Secondhand Drinking”

Via the excellent Spiked Online:

The campaigns to combat the effects of ‘passive smoking’ are widely credited for Europe’s growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the concept of ‘passive drinking’ as their killer argument.I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high environmental or social toll of alcohol, the ‘harm done by someone else’s drinking’. The report is likely to inform proposals for a European Union alcohol strategy later this year.

[…]

By October 2004, the theme was established in a Eurocare submission to the Commission. ‘Alcohol not only harms the user, but those surrounding the user, including the unborn child, children, family members, and the sufferers of crime, violence and drink-driving accidents: this can be termed environmental alcohol damage or “passive drinking”.’

This of course is a replica of the roadmap the prohbition movement used at the beginning of the last century, though Spiked author Bruno Waterfield does draw one distinction, invoking John Stuart Mill:

Once the temperance movement believed man could be saved. Today, it joins with the public health lobby to treat drinking as a form of social pathology rather than a question of moral redemption. Once, public health had the aim of protecting society against disease. Today, the ‘new public health movement’ seeks to protect society against people themselves.

Today’s public health outlook on drinking dovetails neatly with other powerful contemporary trends that emphasise human vulnerability or undermine trust between individuals. Linking drinking to free-floating risks, independent of the intentions of individuals, is a characteristic of today’s anti-humanist climate. But 200 years after his birth, we can take heart from the works and legacy of Mill. He stood against the tide in his day and won. We owe him a debt and we owe the future of freedom a duty to make our own stand against the new public health alliance of the twenty-first century.

I warned in a Cato paper a few years ago about the rise of the neoprohibition movement here in America.  Think it couldn’t happen again?  Consider this little nugget, pulled from the DEA’s website:

A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed—so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto). Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents.

Mark Thornton took on apologists for alcohol prohibition in a Cato paper way back in 1991.

Conservatives Say: Politics Above All

The Washington Times brings news this morning that conservatives are “expressing concern and outrage” about House Speaker Denny Hastert’s strong objections to the FBI’s raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s House office.

Perhaps such “conservatives” ought to recall what the real conservative libertarian who designed the U.S. Constitution once wrote:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to controul the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Hastert is acting in the spirit of Federalist 51. To be sure, there are other considerations in this case, but Hastert is doing what Madison expected congressional leaders to do: stand up for his branch of the government against an encroachment from an ambitious executive. Those who are criticizing Hastert are trying to make corruption a bipartisan stain or to raise public approval of Congress by a point or two. They are ignoring the constitutional dimension of all this.

I’ll take the timeless logic of Federalist 51, thanks.

Ezra Klein, Libertarian?

Since I’ve disagreed with Ezra Klein in the past, I am pleased to report that we agree on what to do about the 7,000 Americans who die every year while waiting for transplantable organs. In a recent post, Klein notes that the shortage of organs is due to a ban on payments to organ providers. Klein advocates lifting that ban.  My favorite line:

We’ve stupidly disallowed payment for organs (if money can’t buy you life, why keep it around?)…

Klein brought to mind an observation made by Prof. Richard Epstein last week in the Wall Street Journal:

Only a bioethicist could prefer a world in which we have 1,000 altruists per annum and over 6,500 excess deaths [to] one in which we have no altruists and no excess deaths.

In Healthy Competition, Mike Tanner and I argue for repeal of Sen. Orrin Hatch’s 1984 National Organ Transplant Act, which prohibits payments to organ providers. 

In a recent issue of Cato’s Regulation magazine, Prof. Lloyd Cohen throws up his hands and issues a challenge to those opposed to such payments. Cohen has re-written his will to ensure that when he dies, his organs cannot be harvested unless his estate is paid $864.27 per organ. Why? Because that requirement will create a real-life situation where paying up will generate more transplantable organs. That will force the bioethicists to explain to four, maybe five families who have their checkbooks in hand, We’re sorry, but your loved one must die for our principles. Cohen urges others to insert similar clauses into their wills, just to get the message through the bioethicists’ heads.

Cohen and other powerful presenters will speak at a June 12 conference on organ markets at the American Enterprise Institute.

Sense and Sensenbrenner

Congressional whining over the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson’s office has reached the point of self-parody. Rep. James Sensenbrenner has now called for rare out-of-session hearings on the raid, titled, “Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?”

This would be the same James Sensenbrenner who wants to give federal law enforcement the power to snoop in on your Internet browsing, and who recently introduced a bill that would send parents to prison if they learn of drug activity near their children and fail to report it to authorities within 24 hours.

“Trampling the Constitution,” indeed. Amazing how reverent politicians get for the Constitution and the rights of the accused when one of their own is under the gun.

Little Victories

…in the fight against the Nanny State: in Massachusetts, the state legislature just narrowly rejected ”primary seat belt legislation.”  In English, that’s a law that gives police the power to pull you over simply because someone in your car isn’t wearing their seatbelt (“secondary seat belt laws” allow them to ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt only if they’ve stopped you for some other infraction). 

Last summer, using night-vision equipment on loan from the National Guard, Maryland state troopers scanned passing cars, then swept out and nabbed 111 offenders for the crime of driving without a seatbelt. Scores of people who were driving along, minding their own business, had their evening ruined by an unpleasant encounter with the business end of the law. Law enforcement overreaching caused an outcry in that case, and citizen pressure in Massachusetts seems to have led several lawmakers to back away from the primary seatbelt bill.

It’s good to know that even in Massachusetts there’s still some resistance to the growing crusade to ensure healthy living through coercion. But it’s not coming from the Governor’s office. Mitt Romney, GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, had promised to sign the bill.

Toughman Contest

U.S. News has an interesting profile of David Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff and top legal adviser—a key player in administration debates over torture, domestic detention, and NSA surveillance. One thing that stood out for me was this description of the social dynamic at work when administration lawyers crafted War on Terror policies:

Whether or not he became the de facto leader of the group, as some administration officials say, Addington’s involvement made for a formidable team. “You put Addington, Yoo, and Gonzales in a room, and there was a race to see who was tougher than the rest and how expansive they could be with respect to presidential power,” says a former Justice Department official. “If you suggested anything less, you were considered a wimp.”

For background on the legal theories that emerged from that environment, see here.

Congress’ Sudden Concern for Overly Aggressive Policing

While the leaders of Congress were wringing their hands over a corrupt colleague having his office raided by FBI agents in suits, a drug task force in Wisconsin needlessly terrorized two completely innocent people last night. From Dodgeville, Wisconsin:

Members of a drug task force burst into a Dodgeville apartment Monday night and arrested two people before officers realized that they were in the wrong apartment.

Richland-Iowa-Grant Drug Task Force members entered the apartment about 10:15 p.m. and arrested its two occupants in what police considered a “high-risk” drug bust, according to the Dodgeville Police Department. Minutes later, they realized that they were in the wrong place and released the occupants.

[…]

Task Force Director Lt. Scott Marquardt said the task force was reviewing what led to the accidental arrests. He said the task force was sorry for what happened to the innocent neighbors.

“We’re very disappointed,” Marquardt said. “We regret the stress and the inconvenience that we caused. That’s not how we do business.”

From research I’ve done for a forthcoming Cato paper, I’d estimate these types of “wrong door” raids are reported in the media 2-3 times per month in the U.S. (it’s likely that they happen and go unreported much more frequently). Most of the time, victims escape with no worse than a broken door and a fractured psyche. Many times, they end up injured. And once or twice a year, an innocent person ends up dead.

With its tireless support for the drug war, and its policy of making surplus military equipment from the Pentagon available to local police departments, Congress is responsible for an explosion of SWAT teams across the country, and a massive increase in the number of times these teams are deployed on such “no-knock” raids. Drug warrant service now comprises the overwhelming majority of SWAT team “call-outs” in America.

So before congressional leaders fret over the “unduly aggressive,” “intimidating” raid of a sitting member’s office, they ought to look into how their own policies have led to police kicking down the doors of dozens of innocent or nonviolent drug offenders in their homes each day in this country.

They could start by Googling “Alberta Spruill,” “Clayton Helriggle,” or “Alberto Sepulveda.”