From time to time in my line of work, I have to read discussions on the policies that underlie law. While it is not the stuff you might first think to pick up before a long flight, it can be interesting as an elemental examination of what any given policy options are really about. Sometimes, though, there is a certain obviousness to it that makes you wonder about the motive for the report or the quality of the analysis that went into its preparation. For example, consider this passage from a summary report:
If a given community has very few existing alcohol-policy restrictions, any proposed new constraint would represent a sizeable proportional change in the overall cost of drinking and driving. If another community already has extremely strong alcohol restrictions, the same proposed new constraint would represent a much smaller proportional change in the full price of drinking.Well it would, wouldn't it? If regulatory obstacles are already in place inhibiting any behaviour, then any additional restraint will have less effect than the day the first regulatory scheme came into force. Is this really saying anything different when applied to beer as opposed to say, illegal speeding or regulations applying to lawn pesticide use? That is really only the law of diminishing returns. And the findings are also interesting: "Our findings suggest that jurisdictions that have been historically reluctant to regulate alcohol availability currently have the most to gain from implementing any given alcohol policy initiative." Would it not be equally true to find that any jurisdictions with a broad range of taxes and other restrictions could do with a level of deregulation without affecting abusive forms of consumption? Without going into an extensive study, Google tells us that the authors, however, appear to be abuse researchers rather than use researchers - or even public policy makers. So there is a safe bet as to the framing of the study, not to mention the hypothesis which was selected for testing.
Jay over at the Brookston Beer Bulletin noted this same study a few days ago and to him it it meant that further regulation was pointless. For me, additionally, it raises a question of the effectiveness of legal drinking age. We Canadians can have a beer at 19 - just like most of the world - so, in itself, there is no clinical abuse in an 20 year old just having a beer. If it is merely one variable within a larger group of others sharing a goal to be achieved, then why not adjust them to maximize freedom especially in any jurisdiction where they are particularly imposed upon?
Comments
Knut Albert - May 2, 2007 9:47 AM
Interesting. And sometime they have to change the law, because someone higher up in the system find out they have to adhere to some principles. When Norway decided to adopt a big chunk og European Union legislation to get access to the Eruopean market for salmon, oil and whatever, they found out that you could no longer ban strong beer because it is beer. This means that the premium Belgian trappist ales are available here now. On the other hand, they use the tax system, making sure a bottle of premium beer is now the same price as a everyday bottle of wine. This is of course very convenient for the chattering classes, who drink their wine in moderation, while the others, who drink beer or the hard stuff, have to be guided by those who are enlighted. The concept of craft beer dioes not fit into this world view.
And it is a paradox that while we have modernized our public sector in many ways, the department of substance abuse is still there, thinking out What is Good for You. I'd be interested in knowing the percentage of the Norwegian regulators who don't touch a drop or alcohol. Would we do that in other sectors? We are talking about stuff that you legally can buy and consume, after all.
And I cannot see that the binge drinking among teenagers has changed over the last few decades, either.
Your quote is illuminating, Alan:
"Our findings suggest that jurisdictions that have been historically reluctant to regulate alcohol availability currently have the most to gain from implementing any given alcohol policy initiative."
Who is gaining? Not the consumer who has his rights eroded piece by piece? No, it's the substance abuse guys. And they are not Big Brother, they are little gnomes sitting there behind their desks, never being able to taste a glass of well hopped beer in the sunshine. No wonder they are som petty minded!
Pootz - May 2, 2007 9:04 PM
Don't get me started on manipulation of the written law...theoretically there isn't supposed to be any "policy" just the law..equal and all encoumpasing...nations who enforce "policy" in place of law are not constitutional democracies under the rule of law....rant mode off.
My other tick ( as a stalward libertarian) are liquor laws and particularly provincial statute law whoth "zero tolerance" policy very publically attached to it...aside from the obvious removal of both extenuating circumstance it is a "policy" which denies the existance of any due diligence and presumes to have set rigid standards that are universally accurate.
Now anyone who has had a drink can tell you alcohol effects differnt people differntly...I have friends that can pound em back and appear and act as sober as a judge ( I hate this kind they always clean up at poker)...so essentially one zero tolerance standard for all is a basic flaw in realities, traditional legal reason and certainly inconsitant with "reasonableness" and fairness in the justice system.
It is obvious that "zero tolerance" policy crept into provincial hiway statutes as the result of pressue from extremist single issue axe grinders..it is unsettling modern government is so quick to embrace uncivil extremism....but then again we saw them dive on "prohibition" and to date, we spend billions of dollars annually trying to irradicate the use of, and prosecute people who possess, a plant that is common in 75% of the earth's climates and land mass...and to date I've yet to see the social benefits of "zero tolerance" laws outweigh the danger of living with a minor tyranny entrenched in law.
I think the thing that bothers me most is being chrged with a statute crime where there is no criminal malice, no evidence of a breach of the peace, no victim, no complaintant and no defense.
I can only hope some day more rational forces in the legal community and government return us to "resonableness" in public intoxication laws.
Until that day our public hiways remain a virtual gulag and harmless victimless crimes will continue to ruin lives.