From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #99 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, March 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 099 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 98 14:04:14 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #78 (fwd) On Mar 29, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia March 29, 1998 #78 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR A MORE PERFECT POLICE STATE For those of us interested in the growth of=20 police powers and how they are used by government to=20 achieve strict social and political control, authoritative=20 information is now available. We were recently provided=20 a very enlightening report titled: "An Appraisal of=20 Technologies of Political Control." The report discusses some very sensitive=20 topics, such as the growth of policing powers,=20 militarization of the police, worldwide convergence of=20 nearly all technologies of political control, new arrest=20 and restraint methods, surveillance devices, and human=20 recognition and tracking devices. There is also a very=20 interesting section on the chemical, kinetic and=20 electrical devices used for crowd control. And, rounding=20 out the report is a section on the use of more powerful=20 restraint, torture, killing and execution, and the role of=20 privatized enterprise in promoting it. This is very scary stuff! Unfortunately=20 though, an American reader will quickly realize this is=20 not science fiction, but rather that most of it represents=20 the present "state of the art" law enforcement practice=20 within the United States. The report is published by the European=20 Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Directorate=20 B, The STOA (Scientific and Technological Options=20 Assessment) Programme, and is directed to Members of the=20 European Parliament. But, don't let that fool you. Most=20 of the equipment and techniques described in the report=20 were developed right here, in the United States. Much of=20 this stuff was developed via military contract, by=20 direction of our Department of Justice. One major benefit=20 of this report is that it identifies the exact origin of=20 all equipment and techniques described, as well as their=20 effectiveness in actual field use. Below is the official abstract of the report. =20 British spelling was not changed. We should also note=20 that the words "political control," as used herein, mean=20 people control by the use of force: - ----------------------------- The objectives of this report are fourfold: =20 (i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a=20 guide to recent advances in the technology of political=20 control; (ii) to identify, analyse and describe the=20 current state of the art of the most salient developments; =20 (iii) to present members with an account of current=20 trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and (iv) to develop=20 policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for=20 their management and future control. The report contains seven substantive sections=20 which cover respectively: (i) The role and function of the technology of=20 political control; (ii) Recent trends and innovations (including=20 the implications of globalisation, militarisation of=20 police equipment, convergence of control systems deployed=20 worldwide and the implications of increasing technology=20 and decision drift); (iii) Developments in surveillance technology=20 (including the emergence of new forms of local, national=20 and international communications interceptions networks=20 and the creation of human recognition and tracking=20 devices); (iv) Innovations in crowd control weapons=20 (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called=20 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA). (v) The emergence of prisoner control as a=20 privatised industry, whilst state prisons face increasing=20 pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost=20 cutting exercises and the social and political=20 implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with=20 strategies of human warehousing. (v) The use of science and technology to=20 devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture=20 technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe. (vi) The implications of vertical and=20 horizontal proliferation of this technology and the need=20 for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure=20 it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor=20 reaches the hands of tyrants. The report makes a series of policy=20 recommendations including the need for appropriate codes=20 of practice. It ends by proposing specific areas where=20 further research is needed to make such regulatory=20 controls effective. The report includes a comprehensive=20 bibliographical survey of some of the most relevant=20 literature. - ----------------------------- Taken as a whole, the report accurately=20 describes a phenomena we find throughout the United=20 States: the proliferation of paramilitary assault teams=20 used for everyday police work. "It is argued that one=20 impact of this process is the militarization of the police=20 and the para-militarization of the army as their roles,=20 equipment and procedures begin to overlap," the report=20 states. And, as rogue segments of our U.S. Army practice=20 live-fire attacks on our civilian population, we see that=20 to be exactly true. Furthermore, they found that 46% of American=20 SWAT team members are prior military. We might also=20 add that many others received military training after=20 joining SWAT teams. SWAT teams are, therefore, military=20 assault teams -- albeit, not usually active, on-duty=20 members of the armed forces, per se. This report is must reading for anyone still=20 believing in our United States Constitution, the rule of=20 law, and those things we once called the "American way" of=20 life. Because, if we do not quickly put a stop to this=20 "political control" of the people by brute force of arms,=20 all freedom is lost. We will have developed into little=20 more than a very efficient police state. The full report can be found at: =20 http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.htm =20 KILLING WITHOUT COMPULSION Here come the sniveling socialists, like=20 Chuck Schumer, out of the woodwork to again blame a class=20 of inanimate objects for the actions of amoral humans. =20 What they conveniently discount is how the actions of=20 their ilk have worked to pollute the minds of some of=20 America's young. When I was young, there were gunfights in=20 movies and (later) on television. It just took the drama=20 of half of the program to set it up. Nowadays, they=20 sometimes kill off 20 people in the advertisement of a=20 movie or TV program. How did all this carnage become=20 acceptable as entertainment? Unfortunately, I remember=20 all too well how it started becoming acceptable. When I was discharged from the Army, I was=20 unbelievably overjoyed about getting back to the real=20 world. I was also happy to get home with all my body=20 parts still attached, as I knew a few who were not quite=20 so lucky. Big man that I was, I thought I was shockproof=20 back then. We saw it all, I thought. Nothing would=20 bother me again; and so on, and so on, and so on. . . . I was so very, very wrong! One day, a couple weeks after doing all the=20 family and friends tour, drinking up a storm, and=20 otherwise carrying on, I started settling down. And, with=20 that, I caught a bit of television. There they were. My comrades in arms. Right=20 there, on the damn television! Then, I saw that the NBC=20 cameraman was doing his best to show dead, mangled and=20 otherwise damaged American military personal. Right=20 there! On my new 21 inch color television. Right on the=20 evening news! For all to see, at dinnertime. I was stunned! Outraged! And I damn near shot=20 my new television. As I later learned, this had been going on for=20 quite some time. And, it continued for a few more years. =20 Dead and damaged people, body counts (all lies), every=20 night at dinnertime. Not just NBC, but ABC and CBS, too. America was not necessarily traumatized from=20 that. Rather, a whole segment of America became=20 desensitized, and used to seeing it every night at=20 dinnertime. Mothers, fathers and children watched napalm=20 and other bombs in action. They learned the body counts,=20 saw the dead bodies and the wounded, and they all=20 continued right on eating dinner. Those children are now today's parents. And=20 still today, the evening news producers attempt to show=20 the worst possible carnage they can find anywhere in the=20 world, in living color, at dinnertime, even though they=20 know the kids are watching. They cannot say that people=20 were killed without showing dead bodies -- the more the=20 better. And it's no surprise that many of today's parents=20 have no compulsion about allowing their children to watch=20 this stuff on the evening news; they grew up with worse. Many of today's parents would not want their=20 child to view an attractive human body that was unclothed. =20 But for some reason, allowing youngsters to see humans=20 mangled and/or killed by unnatural acts seems to be=20 acceptable news programming. There is a point to all this, and it is a very simple=20 point: We (all of us) have allowed the progressive- socialists among us to dictate much of what we see and=20 hear as acceptable. Natural acts should be acceptable,=20 even though all natural acts should not be dwelled upon=20 by youngsters. However, murder, maiming, assault and=20 battery, and other crimes against people, should never be=20 depicted as normal behavior to our young. So, OK, the news media does not show crimes=20 against people as acceptable. They do, however, purposely=20 depict all the gory details as common, everyday sights. =20 Night after night, for the past 30 years, the news media=20 has consistently played all the blood and guts it could=20 get. The children of 30 years ago saw it every night, and=20 so do the children of today. And, that's just on the news=20 at dinnertime. Forget the movies and the music videos. Children are continuously in a learning mode. =20 They try new things, which normally tries the nerves of=20 adults. When children try a dangerous or disrespectful=20 thing, it requires swift correction from an adult. =20 Liberals, however, try to tell us that youngsters are to=20 find their own way by trial and error. Well, if you're a=20 parent, think about that for a while. That's stupid! For instance, I have trained dozens of children=20 on the proper care and use of firearms. And, there was=20 never any doubt by any child that, if they ever pointed a=20 weapon in an inappropriate manner, they would quickly get=20 smacked by me. Some got smacked, but never more than=20 twice. To teach shooting requires a lot more than=20 just how to hit a target. As we see by the news, a few=20 of today's young people think that anything that moves is=20 a good target. Including people. They were taught to=20 shoot. But, they didn't learn respect. Now, instead of=20 getting smacked up side the head a couple times, they'll=20 get prison. This presents a problem in today's world. =20 Liberals do not wish us to discipline children anymore. =20 Therefore, some schools border on anarchy. The "board=20 of education" is no longer applied where appropriate. =20 Hence, we often see the results of a lack of respect and a=20 decline of honor. Was the killing of children and teachers the=20 fault of the guns the amoral kids in Arkansas ripped off=20 from grampa? No! Of course not. It does, however,=20 relate to our desensitized outlook on carnage. And it=20 most certainly is related to our propensity for treating=20 young adults as if they were well trained adults. In the United States, a gun is a mode of self=20 defense. Any person using it differently (hunting game=20 excepted), should receive a significant "smack" upside the=20 head by anyone around. Not teaching young people the=20 proper respect for both the tool in hand and the people=20 nearby is purely and simply negligence. No person in the United States has a license=20 to shoot humans. If they think they do, they are no=20 better than these kids in Arkansas: amoral killers. And,=20 that is exactly why Ruby Ridge and Waco must be revisited=20 by the justice system -- as soon as we get one that works. REAL STRAIGHT TALK The weekly column, "Texas Straight Talk," by=20 Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) cannot be published during the=20 campaign season. However, as we indicated earlier,=20 because we neither know Rep. Paul nor live in his=20 district, that rule does not apply to us. Had the "Texas Straight Talk" been able to=20 publish, the text below would have been included in the=20 March 23, 1998 issue. - ----------------------------- It's not often that Members of Congress have=20 the opportunity to take a vote which clearly states the=20 intent of the Congress to either follow or not follow the=20 Constitution. A vote which is not tethered to pork-barrel=20 spending, special-interest giveaways or political land=20 mines. Such a vote came up last week. Of course, when one sees the results of such a=20 vote -- when it finally comes around -- it is enough to=20 make a decent American blush, and then get very angry=20 at the immorality of our elected officials. Casting votes on the basis of constitutionality=20 is not about a political ideology, it is about basic=20 morality. The moral choice is between following the rule=20 of law or the whims of man. The rule of law gives us=20 liberty, freedom and civilized society, while the whims of=20 man gives us holocausts, confiscatory economic policies=20 and pointless wars. Sadly, though, our representatives and senators,=20 and our presidents, seem intent on following something=20 other than the rule of law. They hide behind pragmatism,=20 behind political expediency, behind the claim to be doing=20 the "will of the people." But the rule of law is about=20 doing what is right and moral, not about what the mob --=20 even if it is a mob of one with the government guns behind=20 it -- might desire at the moment. Of course, the law -- the Constitution -- is=20 inconvenient for those who want to use taxpayer dollars=20 to expand their pet causes or political ambitions. The=20 politics of unconstitutionality knows no partisan=20 boundaries in Washington, which accounts for the=20 continuing upward trend of taxes, regulations, spending=20 and, of course, pork. And so last week there came before Congress=20 legislation stating that Congress and Congress alone has=20 the power to declare war and commit troops into situations=20 of hostility -- as defined and clearly stated in the=20 Constitution. It further stated that if troops are to=20 remain in Bosnia, then Congress should take a vote=20 declaring a state of war. Absent a declaration of war,=20 according to this legislation if it had passed, the troops=20 should be home in 60 days. This was a vote on whether or not this=20 Congress, was going to vote in support of what the=20 Constitution specifically mandates on the issue of=20 military action and commitment of American troops to=20 hostile environments. No policies would change, just a=20 statement of principle upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on this and=20 every other subject. The Constitution, the highest law of=20 the land, defines what the federal government, and the=20 three branches of the federal government, can and cannot=20 do. Everything else, according to the law, the=20 Constitution, is "reserved" to the states and the people. At the core, every vote is a constitutional vote. =20 US Representative and, later, Texas Alamo hero David=20 Crockett, once quoted a constituent, saying, "The=20 Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred,=20 and rigidly observed in all its provisions=85 The people=20 have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the=20 power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized=20 to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. =20 Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of=20 the Constitution=85 It is a precedent fraught with danger=20 to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch=20 its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is=20 no limit to it, and no security for the people." Sadly, 225 Members of Congress chose to=20 ignore the Constitution and forfeit their constitutional- required role in foreign affairs. They had the=20 opportunity to vote in accordance with the most basic,=20 most clearly defined section of the Constitution to which=20 they pledged an oath to uphold, and yet 225 of the 435=20 representatives chose to not follow the rule of law, but=20 to allow the whims of man to prevail. When Congress so clearly votes against the=20 Constitution a dangerous precedent is indeed set, and as=20 Mr. Crockett warned, nothing is safe from the grasp of=20 the politicians. - ----------------------------- Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas=20 in the United States House. He can be contacted at his=20 Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515,=20 or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). It appears that Ron Paul is about to have=20 another tough race. Not because the people don't like=20 him. They do. It's the political establishment that is=20 lining up against him. Simply put, most politicians do=20 not want a Member of Congress who supports our=20 Constitution. Do you? If so, do something. CHANGING NAFTA We have all heard of many problems with=20 NAFTA. Yet, the administration and most of their=20 sycophants in the national media keep telling us the=20 agreement is just great for business. And, NAFTA may=20 actually be good for business. But, only if you happen to=20 be a multi-billion dollar milti-national business. The=20 problem is, most American businesses do not fall into that=20 catagory. So, it was with great interest that we read the=20 "findings" section of a new bill titled the "NAFTA=20 Accountability Act" -- HR-978. The bill was introduced=20 in the House by Rep Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and currently=20 has 91 cosponsors. - ----------------------------- Sec. 2. Findings. The Congress makes the following findings: (1) EXPANDED MARKETS- One of the purposes=20 of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to 'create an=20 expanded and secure market' for United States goods and=20 services. Instead, NAFTA has resulted in an enormous=20 increase in imports to the United States from Mexico and=20 Canada and a spiraling trade deficit with Mexico and=20 Canada that has exceeded $30,000,000,000 in both 1995 and=20 1996. Before NAFTA, the United States had a $1,700,000,000=20 trade surplus with Mexico. Rather than harmonious=20 development and expansion in all 3 NAFTA countries as=20 envisioned, NAFTA has resulted in United States trade=20 deficits which are draining $2,500,000,000 a month from=20 the United States economy and causing greater economic=20 instability in Mexico. (2) CURRENCY STABILITY- One of the=20 purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to=20 'ensure a predictable commercial framework for business=20 planning and investment'. However, NAFTA contains no=20 safeguards to minimize the negative economic impacts of=20 severe shifts in currency exchange rates among the NAFTA=20 Parties. Mexico's sudden devaluation of its peso in=20 December 1994 has more than offset tariff reductions and=20 other trade benefits the United States expected to achieve=20 from the agreement. The dollar-peso exchange rate when=20 NAFTA passed was 1:3.5. It is now approximately 1:8 and=20 is not expected to return to its previous value. Indeed,=20 economic experts are stating that conditions are building=20 for another severe Mexican currency crisis. (3) JOBS, WAGES, AND LIVING STANDARDS - =20 One of the purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is=20 to 'create new employment opportunities and improve=20 working conditions and living standards' in the respective=20 territories of the NAFTA Parties. Instead, there has been=20 a substantial loss of a half million high paying jobs in=20 the United States. A survey of United States companies=20 conducted 3 years after the implementation of NAFTA found=20 that 90 percent of the companies that had anticipated=20 creating United States jobs through NAFTA have, in fact,=20 not created jobs because of NAFTA. In the first 3 years=20 of NAFTA's implementation, United States workers have seen=20 steady drops in real hourly wages. In Mexico employment=20 in the border Maquiladora zone has increased by more than=20 46 percent under NAFTA. However, Mexico has seen much=20 greater job losses in the agricultural, small retail, and=20 small industrial sectors. Thus, more than 2,000,000=20 workers have become unemployed in Mexico since the=20 implementation of NAFTA, and real wages of Mexican=20 workers have been slashed 50 percent. (4) MANUFACTURING BASE- One of the purposes=20 of NAFTA is to enhance the competitiveness of firms in the=20 global market. However, rather than increase the ability=20 of the manufacturing sector in the United States to=20 compete in the world market, NAFTA has facilitated the=20 movement of United States manufacturing facilities and=20 jobs to Mexico. NAFTA has contributed to a net loss of=20 approximately 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the United=20 States and an unprecedented flood of imports of=20 manufactured goods into the United States. (5) HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT- Other=20 purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, are 'to=20 safeguard the public welfare' and 'to strengthen the=20 development and enforcement of environmental laws and=20 regulations'. Yet, since the implementation of NAFTA, the=20 public welfare has been undermined by increased imports=20 of food products that do not meet United States health=20 standards. In addition, NAFTA has accelerated the=20 relocation of United States manufacturing facilities to=20 the United States-Mexico border zone. Without adequate=20 environmental safeguards, the uncontrolled industrial and=20 population growth in the border zone has aggravated=20 pollution and health hazards, increasing the incidence of=20 infectious diseases and human exposure to toxins. - ----------------------------- We cannot find anything to disagree with there. =20 We can, however, add a couple things. For instance, about=20 half of those thousands of large trucks entering the=20 United States every day from Mexico do not even come close=20 to meeting our safety standards -- nor do many of the=20 drivers. How many Americans need get killed on our=20 highways before that is changed? Few of the trucks entering the United States=20 from Mexico are inspected for anything, let alone safety. =20 So, Mexico's largest industry is now illegal drugs. =20 Illegal drugs which, of course, are all shipped here for=20 sale on our streets. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:29:48 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) Just checked and it's 93% yes, vs 5% no out of 1396 votes. Keep it up! Tom At 02:04 PM 3/29/98 PST, you wrote: >On Mar 29, David Wisniewski wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear (concealed) arms? > >http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html > >As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST >Yes: 63% >Uncertain: 2% >No: 33: >Out of 223 votes > >As Billy C. says, vote early, vote often. > >-- >David Wisniewski **FOR SALE: EGW 38 Super Caspian IPSC Open w/ 8 mags** >davidwiz@erols.com USPSA/IPSC A-28835 > >http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/index.html > >Dillon Blue Press Articles: >http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/bp_Index.html > > What is past is prologue > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no >weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his >hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a >on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > >- > > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:18:52 -0800 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) At 02:04 PM 3/29/98 PST, you wrote: >On Mar 29, David Wisniewski wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear (concealed) arms? > >http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html > >As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST >Yes: 63% >Uncertain: 2% >No: 33: >Out of 223 votes There are some other interesting votes at the same site. Here's another one: Should the two Arkansas school-yard killers, ages 11 and 13, be tried as adults or children? http://www.votelink.com/test/questions/Teen/monday5_vot.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) - --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "President Clinton is lucky most Americans lack the time to don hip waders and trudge through the hundreds of pages of sworn testimony in the Paula Jones case. They'd learn the case is about sex only in the sense that "Titanic" is about an iceberg. What's really scary is the progression from sex to thuggery." Wall Street Journal Editorial - March 27, 1998 - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Mar 98 17:52:20 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FLC - Why Drinking and Driving Should not be a Crime: Version 2 (fwd) Some interesting points about Prior Restraint and Freedom, with some application here, from Britain's Arch Libertarian. On Mar 30, Sean Gabb wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Free Life Commentary Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Fifteen 28th March 1998 ========================== "Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) ========================== Why Drinking and Driving Should not be a Crime: Version 2 by Sean Gabb Introduction Last December, I devoted issue number seven of Free Life Commentary to explaining why drinking and driving should not be a crime. I am now returning to this theme. I do so not because I am short of material. Being a libertarian activist in modern England is rather like getting to the top level in one of the more violent computer games: you are running low on ammunition and energy, and the enemy is rushing at you from all directions in greatly increased numbers. My reason is that I seem to be winning this argument. For the past three years, I have been the only person in the country willing to go on air and oppose the general hysteria over drinking and driving. My media database records 25 appearances since November 1994, most of them against spokesmen from the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. This is a movement run by people for whom I have much respect. Unlike the sordid liars of the anti-tobacco lobby, men like Ron Jessup and Graham Buxton believe what they are saying. In various ways, they have been made to suffer by drunken drivers, and their object is to reduce the chances that others will suffer as they have. For this reason, I am always polite to them. With the exception of someone called Harry Capes, who fell to insulting me last Wednesday evening on a BBC Radio programme called Late Night North, they are polite to me. And they are losing. During the past few months, they have been less confident in their arguments than they used to be. Sensing this, the programme hosts have started putting difficult questions of their own. Of course, winning an argument does not lead immediately to changes in the law. If it did, drugs would have been relegalised a long time ago, and handguns would never have been banned in the first place. Where drinking and driving is concerned, there are too many vested interests to overcome, and too great a mass of prejudice built up in the public mind. Even so, unless the argument is won, there can be no prospect of changes in the law. Being just one person, without any burning commitment in the issue, and without a penny of funding, I think I can be proud of what I have done. For this reason, I feel inclined to share my latest thoughts on drinking and driving with the thousand direct subscribers to Free Life Commentary and with the further but unknown thousands who read me on the newsgroups and discussion lists. Drinking and Driving: What I Believe I do not approve of drinking and driving. A motor car in careless hands is a very dangerous thing; and though I doubt some claims about the degree of impairment, I do accept that drivers who drink beyond a certain level become careless. I never drink and drive. Those drivers who lack my sense of responsibility earn my contempt. Those who go on to cause damage to the lives and property of others earn my utter condemnation. My disagreement with the established point of view lies not in whether drinking and driving ought to be deterred. It lies instead over the means by which deterrence ought to be achieved. Deterrence by Prior Restraint For at least the past 30 years, deterrence has lain in prior restraint - in the setting and enforcing of strict upper limits on how much alcohol someone may drink before getting into a car. The present limit - pardon the metricism - is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or about two English pints of beer at normal strength. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Police have the right to test any driver who has been lawfully stopped. This obviously covers drivers who have been involved in an accident. It also covers those who have been stopped on suspicion of any offence. Turning to punishments, the normal penalty for driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs is six months imprisonment, or a fine up to level 5, or both. Disqualification and endorsement are obligatory unless "special reasons" are adduced in court. And the vehicle may be forfeited. For being in charge of a vehicle while over the limit - this may mean having been caught at the wheel of a stationary car with the keys in the ignition - the maximum penalty is three months imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Deterrence by Punishment I disagree with this entire approach. If I had my way, drinking and driving would not in itself be a crime. It would be possible for a person to drink a bottle of whisky, get into a car and drive away - and the authorities would have no power to stop this. Punishment would only come if an accident was caused. But it would then be very severe punishment. There would be no more of those cases we read about in the newspapers, where a driver kills three children on a zebra crossing, tests at three times above the legal limit, and gets away with a one year driving ban and a suspended sentence. I want to see the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 applied to traffic accidents. Causing death by dangerous driving would then not carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment plus fine, as it now does. it would instead be classified as negligent homicide, or manslaughter, the maximum penalty for which is imprisonment for life. Where sufficiently gross negligence could be proved, I would see the offence classified as murder, for which imprisonment for life is now the mandatory punishment - - and for which I would like to see the death penalty restored. In this scheme of deterrence, drivers would still be tested for alcohol after an accident. But they would be tested only after an accident, and a positive result could only be used as evidence in a prosecution for crimes against life or property to prove the degree of negligence, and therefore to determine the level of punishment. The Success of Prior Restraint It may be asked what benefit would be gained from substituting my scheme for the one already in place. After all, prior restraint does appear to have worked. I have before me the Drinking and Driving Statistics issued in September 1997 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. These show that in 1979, there were 1,643 "fatal casualties in accidents where one driver or rider was over the legal limit". By 1985, this number had fallen to 1,040, by 1990 to 760, and by 1996 to 540. Since then, it has almost certainly fallen again. Some of this reduction may be due to the public awareness campaigns. Much of it, though, must be due to the fear of punishment if caught over the limit in charge of a car. The Costs of Prior Restraint The answer is that criminal laws are not to be judged simply in terms of the benefits derived from them. We need also to look at the costs they impose. Laws that on first inspection seem beneficial often turn out on balance to be far less so. This is the case with prior restraint in drinking and driving. It has succeeded in forcing down the number of alcohol-related road deaths. But it has done so at costs that are both exorbitant and unnecessary. Consider: First, the present law is in itself a breach of this country's liberal traditions, and is conducive to further breaches. To be stopped, on no probable cause, and forced to explain ourselves to the authorities - and even sometimes to provide specimens from our own bodies for inspection and recording -is a violation of our liberty. Until a time still within living memory, the Common Law was emphatic in its prohibition of searches and seizures, except by judicial warrant and on evidence of some specific criminal behaviour. The Road Traffic Acts abolish this prohibition partly by defining as crimes behaviour that is not an attack on life or property, and partly by encouraging indiscriminate searches to uncover such behaviour. The Acts may disallow drivers from being stopped without probable cause. Plainly, however, drivers are so stopped. Of the 781,000 breath tests administered in England and Wales during 1996, 87 per cent - that is, 680,000 - were negative. The overwhelming majority of these must have been victims of some unofficial policy to stop every tenth car, or every blue car, or every car with a number place ending in a vowel, or whatever. And this is an unavoidable consequence of the law. At the present alcohol limit, there is seldom any visible impairment of driving ability - - indeed, most drink-related accidents are caused by drivers far in excess of the limit. For the law to be effectively enforced, the Police must stop drivers virtually at random. If the limit is lowered - as the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving is now demanding - the number of tests and the number proving negative must both rise still further. Moreover, once set, despotic precedents are always extended. The present law puts us to the authorities as a child is to its guardian. No matter how friendly, or efficient, or honest the enforcement may be, the law breaks us into the notion that we have a duty of accountability to the authorities, and that this is for our own good. But to be obliged to stop our cars and provide a specimen is no different in principle from being made to carry identity cards and produce them on demand, or having to provide a set of our house keys to the Police, so they can more easily check us from time to time to see if we are receiving stolen goods or hiding bodies under the floorboards - or from being electronically tagged, so the authorities can see where we are at any given time. In spite of having much reduced the number of alcohol-related road deaths, the present law is flatly in contradiction to a thousand years of English constitutional development. It is instead the mark of a police state. Second, the law involves a waste of the tax payers' money. Of those 680,000 negative tests in 1996, let us suppose that each one cost 10 of Police time. That brings a direct cost to the tax payers of nearly 7 million. Turning to waste less easily quantified, every officer assigned to looking for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals. This is specially the case at Christmas, which has lately become carnival a time for burglars and muggers. There are fewer officers around to deter them, and fewer to go looking for them after the event. Third, the law has a double agenda, one open, the other hidden; and pursuit of the latter compromises pursuit of the former. Years of propaganda about the horrors of drinking and driving have tended to obscure the fact that alcohol is not the only cause of driving impairment. Rather as I have, most people have come to attach notions of extreme immorality to drinking before driving. Few such notions are attached to driving while tired or stressed, or after drinking lots of tea or coffee, or while in desperate need of a pee. Yet these are often at least as dangerous as driving slightly above the legal alcohol limit. And they are ignored. Even if some of these causes of accidents are naturally hard to measure, some effort could be made at least to acknowledge their existence. None is made. The spokesman for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions thought at first I was joking when I called last week to ask for statistics on caffeine-related road deaths. Then, after I had insisted, he came back with an explanation that no such statistics were gathered, and that there were no plans to start gathering them. This indicates that much of the propaganda against drinking and driving has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life and property, and everything to do with making it harder to enjoy a drink in good company. Macaulay once said of the 17th century puritans that they hated bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. His epigram applies equally well to the modern puritans, who bray about the horrors of driving after half a pint of lager while refusing even to consider the effects of half a gallon of black coffee. Now, if these were the unavoidable costs of preventing thousands of road deaths, there might be a case for the present law. Though it is not a case that I would accept, I could understand the willingness of others to accept it. But this is not so. People who reply to my talk about civil liberties with talk about the civil liberty to stay alive are missing the point. By returning to our old tradition of deterrence by punishment, exactly the same legitimate object could be achieved - of ensuring that drivers only took to the roads while in a reasonably fit state to drive. It could be done without turning the Police into a British Gestapo, and without stopping seven sober drivers in order to find one who is slightly over the limit - and without letting entirely just concerns about road safety be hijacked by closet prohibitionists. Objections I never get time to say all the above on air. That is the nature of broadcasting. But I usually do get the main points across. If they are not accepted, it is most often for two reasons: First, people often doubt if punishment after the event can have as much deterring power as prior restraint. I cannot say for sure that it would; and I am at a disadvantage in arguing against a scheme of deterrence that does work in spite of what I see as its high costs. Sometimes, I reply that people generally do avoid breaking laws where obedience does not involve going against fundamental desires or principles, and where the punishment is sufficiently heavy. Let causing death by dangerous driving be treated as manslaughter, and there would be no need of breathalysers and intoximeters. More often, I make the point indirectly. Whenever I do a call-in programme, there is always at least one tearful caller lined up to say: "I lost my sixteen year old daughter to a drunken driver. She was coming home after celebrating her exam results. What do you have to say about that?" My response is to ask what punishment this foul beast received. The answer commonly involves something about a 500 fine. My answer to this is to explain how under my scheme of deterrence, that driver would still be rotting in prison - or might even be rotting underground if I had my way with the restoration of the death penalty for murder. This always silences further questions of the same kind. I suspect it also satisfies most listeners. Second, many people cannot see the point in laws that only come into action after something terrible has already happened. As an extreme example, take Harry Capes of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. He came on air against me the other evening, and spent the last minute of the programme insisting over and over that I was "provoking" criminal acts with my view of what the law ought to be. He seemed genuinely outraged that I was denying any place for prior restraint. However, that is what the law must be like in a free country. It must be essentially passive. It must leave people to go about their business, free of inspection and control, and do nothing even when it is plain that some of them are up to no good. It must act only after a crime has been committed against life or property, and must then hit out very severely - so far as possible deterring the lawbreakers from misbehaving again by the weight of punishment, and deterring others from similar misbehaviour by the example of punishment. This is not terribly efficient, I grant. But the reason for that lies in the limited value of law. It is not a magic wand, able to solve whatever problem it is waved over. It is the immaterial equivalent of a baseball bat - effective, though best used not very often. To demand otherwise of the law - to insist on a role for it in preventing crimes - is to think like the citizen of a slave state. I have spent more time in waiting rooms and VIP lounges with spokesmen from the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving than I have in studios. In this time, I have discovered that they are not professional health fascists interested in advancing an agenda of control. They are ordinary people brought into public life by extraordinary misfortunes. One of them even shares my dislike of the European Union and its assault on our native traditions. This being so, I want to end by calling on the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving to continue its work by more British means. Instead of pressing for lower alcohol limits, let it seek an improvement in road safety by pressing for the recovery of freedom and responsibility. Instead of demanding "unfettered discretion" for the Police to enforce the commands of a European-style police state, let it demand a return to our old system of real punishments for real crimes in a free country. ========================== Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send e-mail to Sean Gabb at old.whig@virgin.net Issues are archived at Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London, SW1P 4NN; Telephone: 0181 858 0841 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. ========================== Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. - -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #99 ************************