From
Slate sourced from
BoingBoing over RSS.
Cory Doctorow claims that Tim Wu, writing on Slate has written his "
opus" on the enforcement of laws in the U.S.
From part I:
"Tolerated lawbreaking is almost always a response to a political failure—the inability of our political institutions to adapt to social change or reach a rational compromise that reflects the interests of the nation and all concerned parties."
I'm all for the claim that politics is/has failed us but I hope to see some discussion of alternatives in addition to the evidence that Tim has put out so far in parts
2 and
3. Tim Wu does go on to explain how certain laws are not enforced or (more importantly for my own devices) how those laws are enforced based on class. Just to be clear I do not see that he is trying to prove that lack of enforcement is a sign of complete failure of the political system, only that it shows an inability to reach a viable compromise on specific subjects.
In my social circle I have been known to rant on the seeming inevitability that "rights" (i.e. free speech, firearms) as we know them seem destined to become privileges available only to those available to afford them. For example, while a lower-middle class may be able to afford to open a gun smithing shop and the protection of the law that activity requires, combining that shop with a printing press may get him in trouble if his views do not match a given social norm. Maybe he'll throw both out the window if he commits a youthful indiscretion like downloading music on Bit torrent.
In his first installment, Mr. Wu,
explains the how illicit drugs may have (functionally) become the equivalent to narcotics, though something enjoyed by those with higher incomes.
Antidepressants and anxiety treatments aren't cheap: A fancy drug like Wellbutrin can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,400 a year. These drugs also require access to a sympathetic doctor who will issue a prescription. That's why, generally speaking, the new legalization program is for better-off Americans. As the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports, rich people tend to abuse prescription drugs, while poorer Americans tend to self-medicate with old-fashioned illegal drugs or just get drunk.
I wonder where the majority of law-enforcement dollars are spent? Questioning the need for the use of Ritalin (compared to nicotine and coccaine in the article) among those with a "need" and an ability to pay. Or cracking down on drinking and smoking? Is self-medication a symptom of ills in society, a response to the human condition, or just the inability to find a suitable hobby?
It would be interesting to explore how nicotine and alcohol are regulated in comparison with prescription drugs especially when you through the insurance industry into the mix. I also wonder how advertising plays into the mix. After all, new drugs are heralded in the MSM, can't say the same for the newest liquor concoction.
Tim's next installment explores the
transmission of pornography across state lines evolving the previous section into discussion of how obsolete laws are dealt with (as opposed to repealing the law). Good stuff and I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Wu. I'm particularly interested to see if he brings up speed limits as an example of laws that (as any teenager can tell you) are not enforced uniformly.
I suspect in the end that where laws are enforced unequally or not at all their lack of enforcement stems (in some part) because it inconveniences upper class white men or aging hippy lawmakers.
