Legislation and the Law
Source: (http://www.kefferbarnhart.com)
Most of us have been there before: we are driving down the road, and we see the flashing lights behind us. Whether or not we've been taken into custody, we can all agree that it is a pretty unnerving process (for some more than others). Although things have been this way for a time, and they might seem normal, just, or rational; rarely does anyone call into question the ethics involved. This article aims to do just that and maybe help some better understand the truth of what is transpiring every day in our homes and on our highways.
The modern day phenomena called legislation is a tool used against the average citizen in order to impose a tax, or a punishment onto them for some action or behavior that the state doesn't deem appropriate. While you may think that some make sense or are indeed benevolent in nature, with some research you will find that they simply overlap laws already in place to raise the chances of someone being charged.
So, to the basics. What, exactly, is a crime? To put it simply, a crime is an action that causes harm to another or their property. Now, we can all agree upon that. Most sensible people agree that murder, theft, and vandalism should be punishable crimes in any society. The state takes things way beyond simplicity and sensibility when it comes to legislation. There is an ever increasing number of laws that severely limit our freedom in this country and some even are in direct violation of our rights.
For instance, let's take a look at some of the most commonly enforced statutes:
Drinking and driving and open container laws might seem benevolent, or in the interest of preserving public safety on the surface. Most people know someone who has been charged or sentenced for one or both of these. The punishments for these crimes severely limit an individuals freedom and finances. It gets even worse when you consider "no refusal weekend" and the ridiculously low legal limit of blood alcohol content. A person in no way has to be intoxicated to be charged with these crimes, as we all have differing levels of tolerance. There is no universal level with which an agency can say for sure that a person is, in fact, intoxicated. The .08 limit is lower than what is realistic for most.
Now, in the wake of the rising number of traffic related fatalities; these laws were put into place (along with new no cell phone and seat belt laws) to lower the number of deaths related to automobile travel. In the interest of safety they say. This could not he further from the truth.
One would assume that since these measures were put into place, the roads are actually safer, right? Wrong. Although the DUI law dates back to 1910, traffic-related fatalities remain one of the leading causes of death in our country.
If a person is travelling down the road intoxicated and gets involved in an accident that results in a fatality, that person should by all means be charged for the crime of negligent homicide or maybe vehicular manslaughter. All could agree that the accident happened as a result of carelessness or negligence on the part of the intoxicated individual. But to pull them over and penalize them for having alcohol in their system or an open container in their vehicle is absolutely unjust and unconstitutional, even ludicrous. No victim, no crime.
Seat belt laws and those prohibiting cell phone use while operating a vehicle follow the same twisted logic: Well intentioned individuals get caught up in this scheme whereby they get charged with crimes or penalized with fines for which there is no injured party, or any damage done to another's property.
The war on drugs is yet another fine example of the state's propensity to go overboard. Thousands and thousands of people each year are incarcerated for being in possession of trivial amounts of substances that the state doesn't permit.
Indeed, drugs are harmful to some. But while we may see the most extreme of cases on the nightly news, there are far more people who use these substances causing minimal harm to themselves, and no harm to others. According to an infographic released by the Huffington Post, more than 50% of those incarcerated in federal institutions are there for drug related offenses. Most of these places are so overcrowded, they do not have anymore room to place actual criminals.
To make this possible, the state has stigmatized drugs and their use. Widespread misinformation dating back to the prohibition of alcohol was an effective tool that allowed them to impose this limit to personal freedom. In the 1930's yellow journalism and propaganda surrounding the cannabis plant demonized it and it's users, then the full-fledged war on drugs in the 1970's.
Although there has never been a such thing as a drug free society, and there is no data to suggest there will ever be, yet the state continues to fill its prisons with nonviolent drug offenders who have brought no harm to anyone but themselves. Even though there was no actual crime committed, the punishments for these offenses are outlandish, with some serving harsher penalties than those convicted of rape! But have the laws slowed drug use down? Of course not. Quite the opposite, in fact.
See, when the state prohibits or regulates something, a black market is created. This drives quality down, and causes the price to skyrocket. Knowing this it is easy to understand how prohibition increases the incentives for individuals to become involved in the distribution of such substances in an economy that is bankrupt due to government intervention in the marketplace.
More often than not, those involved in the distribution process are not committing any actual crimes; they are selling their products to a willing buyer. It is only when the state intervenes, that things get violent. Until that point no one is harmed.
Even in the case of accidental overdose we have seen no reduction, but an increase, as a result of state intervention. With purity and quality dropping, it is harder and harder for a user to accurately guage a proper dose of their chosen substances, thus resulting in the unfortunate circumstances of overdose.
Of course the media would have you believe the contrary, but there is too much data on the topic to refute. Sensationalism of the most extreme of cases is partly responsible for the widespread misunderstanding surrounding these issues.
It is imperative that we develop an understanding of our rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Our founding fathers have done a fine job of laying this out for us in terms that require no special education to understand. Too often it is conveniently misinterpreted in order to impose restrictions on the very liberty the document guarantees, and almost always masquerading as servicing the interest of the public, when it is only the state that benefits.
Are we to believe that the state owns us and our bodies? Are we to believe that they own our children? How far will they go? Is safety not the responsibility of each individual citizen? If the control is working so well, then wouldn't people quit doing these things?
These are all good questions. You'll never hear them discussed on a mainstream media outlet, but that doesn't mean they aren't deserving of answers. Truth is, better than imposing control, education could solve a lot of these problems. We can all help teach those who are willing to listen without limiting or destroying any civil liberties. It is our patriotic duty to see past the rhetoric and propaganda. Any good institution doesn't mind being questioned. We all have rights, and if we are to keep them, we must understand them. We must understand that we all have them and if we value our freedom, we mustn't approve limiting it for any reason.
To quote the late and great Charlie Chaplin - "You only need power to do something awful, otherwise love is good enough to get things done"