Be Safe, Break the Law
marginalrevolution.com
marginalrevolution.com
The same thing happens with the war on drugs due to asset forfeiture laws. On the one hand you have a police officer tasked with the hard and often thankless job of enforcing the law, investigating unsolved crimes, meticulously sorting through evidence, walking a beat, etc, etc. On the other hand you have a police officer tasked with the comparatively simple jobs of, say, pulling over "suspicious" looking drivers on the highway and looking for pot in their car, or executing exciting no-knock raids on, in the average case, un-armed drug dealer's houses. In the process generating enough revenue through the seizure and auction of vehicles and houses to pay for raises, more officers, new guns, helicopters, swat teams, armored personnel carriers, etc. The natural equilibrium is going to be that as many officers as possible spend as much time as possible in those typically easier and more glamorous and exciting jobs that generate revenue. This is hardly hypothetical, as over the course of the war on drugs we've seen a dramatic shift in the amount of effort the legal system puts forth in enforcing drug laws and prosecuting drug crimes and we've also seen a dramatic increase in the militarization of even small-town police departments. Assault rifles are more common. No-knock raids are more common. SWAT teams are more common. Use of APCs is more common. And this despite no significant increase in drug dealers becoming more heavily armed or more violent over that time period (except in Mexico which is in a drug-gang induced civil war).
The law should be pragmatic not dogmatic. The law should be molded to aid society not to mold society into some perfect, moral vision. Whenever the law tries to overstep those boundaries the result has always been strife and disaster.
If there is a problem with drug laws and enforcement, I would hazard that it is with classification of certain drugs and the incentives for pursuing different classifications. For example, as best I understand, marijuanna does not have nearly the negative social consequences of meth, yet marijuanna was schedule I for a time and meth is schedule II.
In the US alone there are over 70,000 alcohol related deaths per year. That's nearly a million people a decade, dead because of alcohol. And that doesn't even begin to account for the vastly greater incidence of lesser problems such as abusive, absent, or non-supportive husbands, fathers, mothers; or families in financial ruin due to having to support the expenses and consequences of a severe alcohol habit, etc.
Some people see an activity that causes problems and they think "I know how to solve this, I'll make that activity illegal", now they have two problems. We tried alcohol prohibition, it was far, far worse. We are currently living through the misery of prohibition of some drugs, and it's almost certainly not helping.
You can't get rid of meth by making it illegal, that should be obvious to anybody. And by making it, and so many other drugs, illegal you bring on a whole host of other problems. You weaken the criminal justice system by adding a huge burden to it. You increase corruption of law enforcement officials. You create an easy source of funding for the most ruthless criminals. You degrade respect in the rule of law by outlawing behaviors that a significant fraction of citizens don't believe should be illegal. You put a huge fraction of citizens outside the law by making them criminals, and thus less willing and able to cooperate with law enforcement (to report other crimes, for example). You degrade the justice system by creating these perverse incentives for law enforcement (e.g. due to asset forfeiture).
From a pragmatic standpoint prohibition of drugs makes no sense, it is not a big aid to society it is a huge, huge loss verging on a catastrophe. The problem is that there are a great many people who believe that a good use of the law is to prevent people from doing bad things to themselves. Whether or not that ideology is seated in the firmament of organized religion it works out to just another form of puritanism. And we've seen the problems that law founded in puritan values brings: repression, subjugation, corruption, abuse of power, witch trials, etc. We're already there today but it's harder to make out the shape of things because we are so thoroughly immersed in it.
But there's more to the story...
It's over simplification to say that puritanism is behind entertainment drugs prohibition.
Endemic and widespread drug usage is a real possibility and generally results in a society coming to a halt. A contemporary example is Djibouti and its widespread Khat consumption problem. France, early XXth century had a major issue with Absinthe as well. Older example is China and Opium.
Most of the drugs that are illegal were legal at some point. In the early XXth century you could purchase heroin at the apothecary. This is no longer the case, and that's not just because "doing drugs is bad m'k".
Having drugs illegal makes sure it cannot go beyond a certain point, with counterproductive effects, that's true. But even if it were legal you would have a black market for cheaper/stronger drugs.
No silver bullet...
As to your points above I have a quite suitable counter-argument in the form of the existence proof of modern, productive, civil societies that have legalized or decriminalized drug use and have not seen the catastrophic problems that people such as yourself have predicted, namely: The Netherlands and Portugal.
When observation differs from the predictions of a model it's time to abandon that model. The predictions of the model "prohibition is almost invariably worse than legalization/decriminalization" so far have a rather incredibly high batting average.
In the Netherlands they have such a problem of narco-tourism that they had to harden laws regarding drugs and I would not be surprised that more hardening will come. Additionally, not all drugs were made legal.
You seem to believe that penalizing drugs usage is wrong and counter-productive. My point of view is that it's normal for a state to regulate substances that are potentially harmful.
At some point we leave the domain of objective arguments for the domain of personal beliefs.
Lots of things can cause society to come to a halt.
However, the relevant question is what to do about those things. As has been pointed out, some "solutions" to the drug problem cost far more than the savings. (No, you don't get to count the size of the problem. You only get to count the difference that you make.)
> But even if it were legal you would have a black market for cheaper/stronger drugs.
Yup, look at those stronger cigarettes and stronger alcohol. What? They don't exist?
Note that price does matter - legal but very expensive is effectively illegal. (Which reminds me, at least some of the "illegal drugs" are legal if you pay the very expensive taxes. These taxes often take the form of a "stamp", which frustrates collectors who would like to have all US stamps issued in 2011.)
I'm not saying I believe that you can. I was attempting to address the assertion that drugs are illegal because of moral puritanisim, not whether banning drugs is effective.
I don't mean to undermine your knowledge but that would be impossible, useless, and actually harmful.
And here's why: http://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm -- this is methamphetamine in a legal form that's prescribed to people all over the country. They are using it to help people lose weight. Yeah, I know, right? Meth. Seriously.
Now let's think about "Meth: Not even once." and how that applies to a case where doctor prescribes you methamphetamine for your ADHD (which everyone seems to have nowadays). So what is it now -- "Meth: Not even once, unless prescribed by a doctor"? Nah, doesn't have that nice ring to it.
Drugs are like weapons; that's the reason they're illegal. Imagine not feeling ANY pain, having a sharp powerful intellect, being able to not sleep for days in a row and feel great. You can get stabbed and not even feel it, your hand can be blown off and you won't care. Certainly not concerned with things like having to eat or sleep.
Now I'm sure you would use that power for positive or neutral activities like writing posts online, coding, drawing, studying for exams, or nodding off on a couch, but can you imagine a gang that robs grocery stores on meth? It would be kinda easier to police sober people or people without guns, right?
I don't think drugs should be completely legal or illegal. I think using drugs should be a privilege like driving a car or owning a handgun, a privilege that can be easily earned by perhaps passing tests and lacking history of violent crimes. Like a 'drug user's license' that can be taken away temporarily or permanently for violations of public safety.
I would certainly not want criminals who can harm me owning guns, driving cars, or using drugs. That's my point and this is where I partially agree with prohibition.
Note that the above does not represent my views, but it fits the evidence as well as Tabarrok's take.
But honestly, a binary choice is just no way to express political opinion: Why should my views on abortion correlated with my views on free trade?
At least getting a multi-party system would be worth a try.
Scanning your comment history, it looks like you're German?
I think you may have a rather badly skewed (or outdated) view of American politics. Unless you're considered quite far right by European standards, the current US Republican party's views are probably far removed from your own. Your comment about "internalizing the externalities" by raising gas taxes alone would get you skinned alive at Republican gatherings in most states. And if you view Democrats as "left", all I can say is they often make your center-right parties look like socialists.
eru's statement was "If I was living in the US, I'd probably vote mostly Republican". In the context of the discussion, I interpret that, quite reasonably I think, as broad agreement with what he perceived to be Republican policies.
My response was intended simply to point out to him that it is highly unlikely he truly has such broad agreement with Republicans, particularly in the context of other statements, and in the (hidden) context of other Europeans I've encountered who thought they would be Republicans in the US, and were quite surprised when they learned the modern state of the Republican party, which is far outside mainstream European politics.
When discussing traffic, why is this even brought up? It's like the point of the law goes from protecting you to finding ways to screw you. I'm not saying abolish speed limits, I'm asking why the police even have a say against traffic engineers on a matter like this. Their inability to turn revenue should be their problem to solve...not everyone else's.
Yes, but it isn't ethical or good for society to do so by making a law just so that people will break it and get fined. Tying police pay to enforcement actions at any level will result in overzealous enforcement instead of the objectivity we should want from our police.
You're also implying that raising the speed limit in the case being discussed would lead to a higher rate of crashes or injuries but you haven't provided any evidence for that claim. The author did provide evidence showing the opposite.
As for the other point you make, in my state (Michigan), the courts ruled that jurisdictions need to provide a good case for having the speed limit lower than the standard. As soon as that ruling went into effect, most all the streets in town raised their limit to 45mph.
Neither of these constitute even a slight approach to a justification for lowering the speed limit to give people more tickets. If someone wants to spend their money on gasoline, that's their prerogative.
Nowadays, when the supply of gas goes down a bit the price goes up and people carpool a bit more, don't drive to far away stores when there's a nearby store that's almost as good, and drive a bit more slowley. And it does really bring supply and demand into equilibrium - we didn't see huge lines outside our gas stations when Libya had its civil war.
Demand for gas is indeed fairly inelastic, but that just means that the price swings much farther due to a change in supply than, say, the price of a diamond ring does. It would have to be perfectly inelastic for no adjustment to occur.
The only question of merit here is whether or not keeping the speed limit artificially low is, in fact, dangerous or inefficient. The author contends to have presented evidence that this it is, so the reasonable response is a discussion of the engineering factors or the reliability of his sources.
Oh, and this I got it from a German policeman because I asked him why they were not controlling during pick up time.
1. Kids are out and about during this period. There aren't as many of them, so that's the time when drivers are more likely to miss them.
2. Drivers tend to drive the speed of prevailing traffic. By slowing down traffic at 2PM, you're slowing down the traffic, and that effect will persist for a little while at least.
actual modern implementations aren't about guilt, they are more practical - by selectively enforcing these laws government can target anybody at any moment. There is a saying in Russia - "Given a man, it is always possible to find a law [he's broken]." ("Byl by chelovek, a statya naydettsya" :)
http://beta2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2008/mar/12/na-red-li...
These systems are usually run by contractors, who include a guaranteed-revenue clause in their operating agreements. If the cameras are actually effective in stopping people from running red lights, then the operators will go back to the local government to demand that they make up the shortfall.
All in all, a dirty business that's clearly not safety-driven.
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...
I hate long yellows, and even worse is the "all red" period some cities have added between the yellow and the next light turning green. It makes traffic inefficient for people who follow the law (which says you must stop at yellow lights) and it vastly increases the number of people who blow late yellows and even reds.
All-red periods are also useful at intersections where traffic backs up and blocks the intersection for a few seconds, not because drivers entered the intersection when traffic was stopped, but because events down the street or at an adjacent light may cause traffic to stop suddenly with drivers already in the intersection.
I don't know about where you are, but here amber lights mean "Stop if it's safe to do so", i.e. if the choices are go through the junction or slam on the breaks, you should go through the junction. If the choices are to stop smoothly and safely or go through the junction, you should stop.
And I disagree with your justification for all-red periods. If you're stopped in the middle of an intersection because of a blockage, it usually takes a lot longer than 1-2 seconds to clear the intersection.
Sadly, civil disobedience doesn't work any more, remember, if you break the law, hell even if you just disagree with it, you're not a patriot, you're a traitor.
There was one case a few years back where a police department stopped writing tickets because the town didn't approve their pay increase. When the town sued they said, "Nobody's speeding!"
EDIT: Found the original source. Apparently I misremembered several things, but the point is intact in that the police found a way to avoid turning over the money as the law required. http://kcsweb.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/forfeit.htm
(Then again, some of the worst offenders in that regard tend to be the police, themselves, in my experience. I can't count the number of times I've been caught in some huge knot of traffic pacing a cop who's driving two or three MPH under the posted limit, as if he's daring people to pass him...)
Of course, I've also argued for just as long if not longer that one should have to pass a university-level course in fluid dynamics in order to get a driver's license, and I don't see that happening any time soon, either.
I saw that all the time on my way into work (internship) this past summer. I just passed the cop. What annoyed me was other people who refused to pass the cop.
I also saw, in equal amount to cops going too slow, was cops going too fast, oh well.
One gets tailgated often enough for driving "only" 10 mph over the speed limit. I can only begin to imagine the extremes to which such a short-sighted rule would lead.
1. If you have more car-lengths of empty lane in front of you than you do cars backed up behind you, you're impeding the flow of traffic.
2. If you have no room in front of you and some asshole is tailgating you, he's an asshole.
Exceptions apply, of course — they're only rules of thumb, after all — but they've served me well enough.
Bad rule. You're actually smoothing traffic by creating anti-traffic in front of you to absorb minor slowdowns. Drivers who keep distance in front of them are essential to dissolving traffic jams. See http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html for more details.
Germany also has sections of highway with no speed limit that rather suddenly run in to sections with a fairly low speed limit. The result can be a standing wave in traffic, often leading to complete stoppages on the autobahnen. The fact that many of their highways don't have enough lanes for the volume of traffic doesn't help either.
Really, cars and speed limits are very particular in Germany, if Germans are normally very rational in the way they manage their life, they keep all their irrationality for their behaviour with respect to their cars.
I've driven in Germany quite a bit. I've never seen an accident on one of the unlimited speed sections; all the highway crashes I've seen were near towns, usually with a 100km/h speed limit.
My rationale is simple - I've been driving 9 years with 0 traffic fines. I'm in no great hurry to get from A to B, so when other drivers tailgate me I just smile and wave.
Would it be systemically safer for me to drive at the same speed as everyone else? Probably. Do I want to blow 90% of my disposable income on traffic fines? Not really!
Whereas a speeding fine here can easily cost you between $300-$500.
I would interpret this as "for driving in the wrong lane."