Jackbooted nags

Gene Heally, him of the Cato Institute, has an op-ed up here regarding the growing power of obnoxious thugs passing laws to protect us from those notorious fools, criminals and scofflaws, us.

Right here in the District of Columbia, our nation's capital,

Last Tuesday, the D.C. City Council heard testimony on a bill that would make it illegal to smoke in a bar, even if the owner, the employees and the customers all agree that smoking should be permitted.

...The pro-ban forces have packaged their message in the rhetoric of workers' rights. It's an effective strategy, one that draws on the insights of smoking-ban pioneer Stanton Glantz. At a 1986 conference of anti-smoking activists, Glantz advised that "the issue should be framed in the rhetoric of the environment, toxic chemicals, and public health rather than the rhetoric of saving smokers from themselves."

And that was the gist of many of those supporting the ban. After kicking the smokers out of the bars, the next step is to ban smoking on sidewalks, in parks, and in one extreme case, even in the smoker's own home. Thankfully, that last didn't survive scrutiny. But these laws are eating away at our freedom as surely as the erosion of property rights we've been discussing here the last couple days.

Once nanny laws are in place, the next step is enforcement. What police officer wouldn't rather pull over a soccer mom for a seat belt violation than chase down some dangerous criminal? It's safe, and even if only unconsciously, they're going to emphasize that kind of behavior. And some police forces are going to absurd lengths to protect us. Witness:

One wonders if this is really the sort of thing police should be focusing on in the on-again, off-again murder capital of the United States. But the idea that the police should focus solely on protecting us from crime is one that many have come to think of as archaic. The new view is that it's also law enforcement's job to protect us from our own bad habits. In a 2003 sting operation, Fairfax, Va., police officers entered 20 bars, administered breathalyzer tests, and arrested nine patrons for intoxication. Fairfax police Chief J. Thomas Manger declaimed: "Public intoxication is against the law. You can't be drunk in a bar."

And two weeks ago, using night-vision equipment on loan from the National Guard, Maryland state troopers 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. Welcome to the era of jackbooted nags.

It's things like this that make my testicles clench whenever I see a cop, never mind the fact that I am a law abiding citizen going about my lawful business.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 5

§ 5 Comments

1

I'm wrestling with this one:

In a 2003 sting operation, Fairfax, Va., police officers entered 20 bars, administered breathalyzer tests, and arrested nine patrons for intoxication.

I'm all for curbing drunk driving, for all the obvious reasons. But if a cop walked up to me in a bar and tried to perform a breathalyzer, I'd tell him to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. And I'd win, because what could they do? Threaten to take away my drinking license?

2

Well, if you were in Columbus they could: beat the crap out of you, then arrest you for drunk and disorderly *and* resisting arrest, then make you spend the night in jail. And probably seize your car, home, and money while they're at it, and imprison you indefinitely for terrorism under the Patriot Act.

3

Well, I hope not, at least not on the night in jail and the loss of all worldly possessions, because I still know some of the best attorneys in Columbus.

But perhaps things really have changed in ye auld home town that much, so I shudder to think you could be right.

4

Excepting the loss of all worldly possesions and permanent detention as a terrorist, that's pretty much what happened to a friend of mine who, being drunk, decided to walk home from Union Station. He was a bit stumbly, and the cops drove up on the sidesalk to nail him for drunk and disorderly. When he complained to them that he was walking home so that he wouldn't be killing people with his car, they beat the crap out of him and arrested him for D and D, and resisting arrest.

This happened in about '94.

5

B,
He should have just slept it off on the sidewalk. Uniformed enforcers don't seem to mind those people much.

The claws are also coming out in DC over the repeal of the ridiculous firearms law there. I don't know where it is now, but it got support in the Congress.

One brief but shrill op-ed mentioned the musket-wielding gun kooks of the NRA or some such, and suggested that anyone who has a gun in the home for self defense is a danger to the community. A licensed, permitted, law-abiding danger.

Not at all like the rampaging drug fiends and gangbangers- they are victims of addiciton and need treatment, understanding, and patience. And if they steal from you, hey it's only things, right? And if they kill someone you love in the process, well, you shouldn't have been resisting them in the first place.

I dunno man. I think anyone who depends entirely on the gubmint and its representatives to protect his physical wellbeing is naive. By which I mean, "a fucking idiot".

What I don't understand is how it's come to pass that government substituting itself for parents, other family, role models, or your own common sense is good.

I'm sure hippies are to blame in some way.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]