A couple of dumb laws making their rounds in Nashville
First up, the new seat belt law would allow police to pull you over if they see that you’re not buckled up. Under the old law, they’d ticket you for it only if they pulled you over for something else. Gov. Bredesen, who says he’ll sign the bill, said:
”I understand the issue of personal freedom versus safety, but I’ve been supportive of it,”
No, Phil, I don’t think you understand personal freedom if you’re willing to act against it by law. Personal freedom also includes the freedom to be stupid and not buckle up. And:
Those for the law say it will save lives — about 81 each year in Tennessee.
I’d put that number at closer to zero. Anyone inclined to not buckle up isn’t going to start now.
And here’s my favorite, the crack tax:
Put(s) a tax on illegal drugs and alcohol for people caught with the substances. Estimated to bring in $1 million to the state and $2 million to local governments.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that people who deal drugs won’t mind a little tax evasion. I’m no legal scholar, but it seems this might involve double jeopardy. These folks will go to jail and pay fines; then pay a tax. Seems silly to me.
May 21st, 2004 at 9:44 am
I could totally be missing the point on this one, but it would seem the “Crack Tax” is simply a way to speed asset forfeiture.
It might even be a money grab by the state against local governments if TN is a state where the locals get to keep what the seize & then process for asset forfeiture.
May 21st, 2004 at 11:35 am
Now bear in mind that here in Sask, there have been seatbelt laws since the soon-to-be-in-danger-of-being-made-illegal-due-to-gay-marriages Christ was a child. So I don’t know any different.
Why is buckling up an issue of “personal freedom” and other auto-related legislation such as speed laws are not? Are mandatory child car seats legit or personal freedom as well? Is making your passengers buckle up personal freedom? And if you decide not to buckle up, does that negate any health and liability insurance claims you may have as the result of injury to body and vehicle, both yours and someone else’s?
May 21st, 2004 at 11:42 am
Who said those other things weren’t issues of personal freedom?
I can buy the child seat argument (children can’t make their own decisions) and the speed limit argument (if i speed, my reaction time is less and i may endanger others).
May 21st, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Against seatbelt laws? This is where libertarians cross the line into self-parody. IT’s like no amount of unambiguous benefit can ever justify any policy. Even given my libertarian leanings (mild compared to yours I admit), I can think of three good reasons to support mandatory seatbelt use:
1. Seatbelts save lives at very low personal cost. More people using them is a good thing.
2. The roads are public. It is reasonable for society to make rules that say if you use the public roads, you must do so in a safe manner.
3. When you break your face on the windshield, there is a huge social cost. Medical care, infrastructure, personal unpheaval, etc. Seatbelts are such a low-cost way to avoid these costs, that to disavow them is irrational.
Again, it comes down to the really small burden involved in wearing a seatbelt.
May 21st, 2004 at 12:39 pm
And BTW, the crack tax is dumb, but it’s not double jeopardy. It supposedly opens some tools to allow law enforcement to go after drug dealers, although I’m skeptical on that justification.
May 21st, 2004 at 1:45 pm
I’m generally supportive of seat belt laws, but I don’t like the idea that they can pull you over just because they think you’re not wearing a seat belt. That goes too far.
And I’m sure I’ve said this here before, but I would support laws that dictate that if you fail to wear a seat belt and are involved in an accident, you have automatically limited the liability of the others involved in the accident. That is, if I rear-end you and you’re not wearing a seat belt and you fly through your windshield and you die, I’m not liable in the matter of your death, because if you had been wearing a seatbelt, your injuries would have been minor.
May 21st, 2004 at 2:00 pm
Imagine how many cops will be pulling people over because they “thought they were not wearing a seatbelt”..and then lo and behold “sir we are gonna have to search your car for illicit substances…”
May 21st, 2004 at 4:02 pm
Uncle:
I’m no fan of seatbelt laws myself, but I’d be lying if I said they didn’t save some lives. By analogy, I find helmet laws equally objectionable on libertarian grounds, but I cringe every time I see someone ride by without a helmet, especially after last December’s accident. I never see riders without helmets in California (duh), but whenever I set foot in a state without a helmet law, riders without helmets seem to be more the rule than the exception.
As to the crack tax, it may or may not be a good idea, but it doesn’t come close to involving double jeopardy. The only way it could would be if someone were tried for selling crack, acquitted, and then tried again for failing to pay the crack tax on the crack he’d just been acquitted of selling. Even then, depending on the scope of the tax and the basis of his acquittal, it’s still not clear there’s a double jeopardy problem. For example, maybe the jury acquitted the guy because they knew he sold something, but found reasonable doubt as to whether it really was crack. Whatever it was that he sold, legal or illegal, he illegally failed to pay his taxes on it.
The strongest potential constitutional issue I can think of is self-incrimination. If the “crack tax” is really just the application of existing taxes to crack, or if crack tax stamps are handed out with no questions asked, then there’s probably not much of a problem here. But if there is no legal way for a person to pay his crack tax without tipping off the authorities to a past crime, then I think we have a real problem there.
Tom: I like the idea of limiting liability, but eliminating it altogether strikes me as a bad idea. I think it be fairer to say that if you negligently rear-end me, and I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, you should still be liable to me for the damages that I (probably) would have sustained if I had been wearing a seatbelt.
No, I wasn’t trying to be cute when I addressed the two parts of this comment to “Uncle” and “Tom,” respectively. It just sort of happened that way.
May 21st, 2004 at 4:11 pm
I’m with you XRLQ, i cringe when i see it. But with freedom comes the freedom to be a victim of your own stupidity.
May 21st, 2004 at 5:26 pm
Brute: good points all. I had never looked at it from a sort of cost:benefit ratio like that.