Reason magazine offers a stinging critique of a new crop of increasingly draconian DUI laws titled, "Prohibition Returns!" One example: In Washington DC, cops can arrest you for any blood alcohol reading above 0.01, even if you are not legally drunk.

David Harsanyi writes, "Neoprohibitionists aim to muddle the distinction between drunk diving and driving after drinking any amount of alcohol. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea at a Senate Environment and Public Committee hearing way back in 1997, contending that we 'may wind up in this country going to zero tolerance, period.' Former MADD President Katherine Prescott concurred, in a letter to the Chicago Tribune, where she stated 'there is no safe blood alcohol, and for that reason responsible drinking means no drinking and driving.'"

Now, that's crazy talk, and much like the recent push to ban people from smoking in the privacy of their own apartments, it's a classic case of our puritanical instincts run amok. We seem unable to maintain the distinction between between a personal vice and a legal crime. People do and should have the freedom to do things that are not necessarily good -- even outright bad -- for them. They don't however have the right to be a hazard to others. So it makes sense to ban smoking in public spaces due to the dangers of second-hand smoke, but not to designate cigarettes a controlled subtance so you can get the FDA to essentially ban it.

Similarly, it makes sense to crack down on drunk driving, but not to restrict people's right to drink alcohol, period. "Drinking is under attack these days in ways we haven't seen since the failed experiment with national alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. Indeed, for many neoprohibitionists, that experiment wasn't a failure at all, since it did cut alcohol consumption, which is all that matters. We can see that mentality today in policies that go beyond preventing drunk driving or punishing drunk drivers and aim to discourage drinking per se," Harsanyi writes.

I'm not a hard-wired libertarian like Harsanyi -- who objects to even road blocks during holiday season -- but I do think it's time to say no to this push to control private behavior and space. It's outright un-American.

Postscript: I noticed that the article is adapted from Harsanyi's book, titled "Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America Into a Nation of Children." I've never much cared for the term "nanny state," if only because it's one of those catchy rightwing phrases that plays on liberal stereotypes to dismiss perfectly sensible policies. It also misleadingly suggests a liberal/lefty consensus on the extent to which the state should regulate private behavior, be it eating, drinking, smoking, taking drugs, or sex. Besides, groups like MADD -- and their ideological position on regulating personal behavior -- get plenty of support on either side of the traditional left/right divide.

Comments (50)

1. i am struggling to detect he author's point here.......can someone help me? all of her anecdotes or examples need more background info, and between them, more relevancy.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2007 @ 2:32pm

2. its this country's long tradition of crusading to the point of idiocy. smoke bad...but banning it completely? booze and cruise bad...but cant have a beer or two with your meal?

   silly, useless, paranoid, redonkulous, waste of time, legislation that if anything encourages people's perversity...

   you know, DARLA, like the pot prohibition laws...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2007 @ 2:37pm

3. Posted by DARLADOON 11/05/2007 @ 2:32pm

   She's realizing as Dr. Asimov once said that "It's a poor blaster that doesn't point both ways".

   The "do-gooders" of BOTH sides, Right and the original Prohibitions (alcohol and later drugs)...have their counterparts on the Left. First with "zero tolerance" DUIs...and the later ones we'll see such as "no trans-fats", leading inexorcably to "fat taxes" (after universal health care comes) and maybe even a push for punitive action against McDonald's, etc., "Big Fat" in the same manner as the push against "Big Tobacco".

   People want to control your life "for your own good"...they rarely say "Okay, that's enough. We'll stop now!"

   Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 2:37pm

4. Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 2:37pm

   i honestly would not mind "trans fat" style sin taxing...if the money went to health care, etc...

   better than sueing or illegalizing or trying to stamp out the inerradicable...

   pot tax, whore tax, fat tax, cig tax...whatever...just let all the oney go toward health care...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2007 @ 2:44pm

5. driving while "drunk" or "slightly drunk" has nothing in common with smoking, trans fat, or whatever.....it's a matter of conjecture (presuming the driver hasn't done anything wrong, yet) whether a driver is drunk. some people (especially in california) can just cruise in a straight line, for hours, while being intoxicated. others, can't.

   who determines whether someone is truly too impaired to drive?

   smoking in public? easy to figure out. trans fat? same as the high alcohol taxes in sweden. america is, by and large, the fattest country on earth. easy to figure that out as well....

   Posted by darladoon at 11/05/2007 @ 2:49pm

6. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/05/2007 @ 2:44pm Posted by DARLADOON 11/05/2007 @ 2:49pm

   Okay, guys....just remember, to paraphrase Rev. Niemoller-

   First they came for the tobacco smokers, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a smoker;

   Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a drinker;

   Then they came for the Mickey D burger eaters, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Mickey D burger eater;

   Then they came for the soda drinkers, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a soda drinkers;

   Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 2:59pm

7. This is a heap of nonsense. If people are trying to make the country dry in some respects, why are there so many beer (and now liquor) ads all over the television? Knowing how obedient al-Amriki is to the gleaming box it seems to me this advertising only glorifies la fiesta with what are often times clever and amusing ads. More, it isn't infrequently that an ad for alcohol is followed by an ad for an automobile, which of course is a voguish symbol of success and freedom.

   I'm all for knocking the donuts, sodas and burgers out of the paws of the fleshy rubes of L'America, but then again I believe in natural selection and some people just ought to be allowed to autointoxicate themselves, even if it brings on death. You can't control personal appetites (though much progress has been made towards this very end), which means you'll always have people who want to smoke, drink, eat rubbish posturing as food, etc. If you banned cigarettes people would rob and kill for them, just as they do for other narcotics.

   Education is the key here, but that's a notion the US doesn't believe in. And besides, with such an insane society drinking is the least of your worries when it comes to vices. I'd be more worried about the pharmaceuticals and other more potent drugs being used to console the huddled masses. Either way, there's a growing market for vice in the US, so no matter how big a vicesquad you put together it will never overpower Budweiser, Merck or Marlboro and the money they bring in - and give to the politicians.

   Posted by chimichenga at 11/05/2007 @ 3:00pm

8. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 3:00pm

   I'd be more worried about getting my stomack X-rayed a dozen times a year by some oppressive South American country...over the Wellbutrin.

   But that's just me, Glaxo may make some profit, but atleast I don't get stomach cancer and have to use my passport to go HOME for medical treatment!

   Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 3:06pm

9. Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 3:06pm | ignore this person

   Did I say it happens often? I am in WAY better shape than you and can assure you I am healthier both physically and mentally. BTW, you call Colombia oppressive yet it's your greatest ally on the continent. Are you finally admitting that you support terrorism? Still deny that Chiquita brings in kilos of coke along with the bananas in all those containers? That Chiquita was caught arming the paramilitaries with AK-47s? Do a bit of research and you'll see just how much the US enables the "oppression" here.

   But hey, so long as bananas are 49 cents/lb in your little bubble what do you care?

   Posted by chimichenga at 11/05/2007 @ 3:11pm

10. Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 2:59pm

    then they came for the undercooked meat and cat turds!

    toxoplasmosis [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2007 @ 3:18pm

11. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 3:11pm

    i dont know...seemed to me like latin americans just accepted the fact that everyone eventually croaks a lot better than us citzens of the great anglo disneyworld...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/05/2007 @ 3:22pm

12. Education is the key here, but that's a notion the US doesn't believe in. And besides, with such an insane society drinking is the least of your worries when it comes to vices. I'd be more worried about the pharmaceuticals and other more potent drugs being used to console the huddled masses. Either way, there's a growing market for vice in the US, so no matter how big a vicesquad you put together it will never overpower Budweiser, Merck or Marlboro and the money they bring in - and give to the politicians.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 3:00pm

    Yes, but everyone misses the point. Insurance companies want to remove any and all reasons that they may have to pay for an auto accident. So, if Billy Bob goes out and has half a beer, they can claim zero tolerance and not have to pay for the damages.

    I would wager that in a few years, if you are overweight by x amount, your health insurance will be more expensive. And, by chance, if you were to admit that you have a beer or two, they'll probably jack your insurance rates again.

    There are always people out there wishing to control what others do. I think mostly because they are serious screw ups themselves or don't have a life so they think no one else should either. The typical church lady type.

    Here's another look at the irony of this. These people have a big thing against alcohol, but nothing against folks owning an arsenol of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Now, here are devices designed to kill people that are for sale. And here we have the NRA playing the national anthem with the flag waving in the background making it appear as if purchasing weapons is all American like apple pie.

    There is no consistancy in the arguement of the folks on the right. Abortions are bad, but the death penalty is great. Drinking is bad, but people should be able to purchase guns to kill. Being gay is bad, but ministers beating and raping children is ok. The religious rights version of heaven on earth is my version of hell.

    Yes, these are the kinds of people I want making decisions on my life.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/05/2007 @ 3:32pm

13. Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/05/2007 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

    Yes, Puritans in the 21st century ruling the land. Pretty scary.

    As far as the insurance companies, well, I guess they'll just exact a higher toll on the morons and their lousy life choices, which is about 90% of the population.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/05/2007 @ 3:47pm

14. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 3:11pm

    CHIMI, I don't support Colombia's government....since I don't pay taxes there.

    Uh....do you?

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 3:54pm

15. Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person

    I work illegally. Call me clandestino.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/05/2007 @ 3:57pm

16. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/05/2007 @ 3:18pm

    Not a matter of the stuff being "clean", IBB. It's about a small, VOCAL group deciding they know best for you and wanting to BAN the substance, or make it so punitive to use it that it is effectively banned.

    And it's NEVER worked. All a prohibition does is put a lot of small timers in prison, the connected get off, and (usually) some thug gets rich supplying the product.

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 4:00pm

17. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 3:57pm

    So you're a criminal in your adopted home-land....I see.

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 4:01pm

18. There is a great deal of $$$ to be made by any law enforcement endeavor these days. Have you heard of the recent fine levels and costs to be extracted from those being prosecuted? Lawyers, legal system support, and then of course the prison system if one has a previous history of convictions.

    And then there is the issue who will get stopped and who will likely get bypassed. How many congress folk and money magnets are able to rise above the application of the law?

    Look at how many pot-heads are in jail now on the three and out laws in many states. You tell me that the privatized criminal justice sector of our society is above the law of profit and I'll sell you something you wish you never bought.

    Posted by steve foster at 11/05/2007 @ 4:06pm

19. I flout the conventions of any and all societies.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/05/2007 @ 4:11pm

20. I flout the conventions of any and all societies.----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 4:11pm

    So did Dillinger and the James Gang....heheh

    (except of course when it comes into returning to your evil original homeland LEGALLY...right?)

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 4:37pm

21. Nothing here makes me yawn. Can you say the same, MASK? You make it seem as if I'm missing out on the Big Bash. All this time you've never been able to understand why, despite all your plastic attempts to pelt me with inducements as to why I should return (or why I'll inevitably give up my adventure abroad), I find contentment in a foreign land, though surely not without imperfections. Maybe if you added some spice to your prosaic life you'd understand why novelty and daily adventure aren't things you order online or find at your local supermarket. You are no better than the vice-crusaders wanting to digitize the common appetites of the rabble, for you constantly try to make me out to be a small-beer rebel without a cause.

    I don't live in luxury, nor do I boast much talisman like my countrymen, but I live life on my own terms. This is what matters to me, so continue with your drivel about how wrong I am for living overseas. The important thing is, I am constantly reminded of my vitality. Are you?

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/05/2007 @ 4:50pm

22. home is where the heart is baby

    Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2007 @ 4:53pm

23. back to the topic.

    Every person male or female that I pealed out from behind the wheel in a bar parking lot so fucked up they were speaking in tongues all said the same thing, they were ok to drive.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2007 @ 4:58pm

24. They weren't.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/05/2007 @ 4:59pm

25. "Now, that's crazy talk, and much like the recent push to ban people from smoking in the privacy of their own apartments,"

    ever have an apartment next to a heavy smoker?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:19pm

26. CHIMI, I don't support Colombia's government....since I don't pay taxes there.

    Uh....do you?

    Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 3:54pm

    uh, you sure do...........................

    u.s. aid to colombia since 1997 [ciponline.org]

    u.s. aid to colombia, 2007: $756, 500, 000 ÷ 130,000,000 taxpayers = $5.82 for every u.s. taxpayer.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:35pm

27. "Every person male or female that I pealed out from behind the wheel in a bar parking lot so fucked up they were speaking in tongues all said the same thing, they were ok to drive.

    Posted by WILL C. 11/05/2007 @ 4:58pm

    Please tell me you don't do that any more?!?!

    Posted by ACook at 11/05/2007 @ 5:35pm

28. Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/05/2007 @ 3:32pm

    You wanna come work with me in ICCU?

    Posted by ACook at 11/05/2007 @ 5:38pm

29. well, i hope you reinstate prohibition.

    my town lived one of its best periods in the 20s......................

    we've still got two giant distilleries.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:38pm

30. Please tell me you don't do that any more?!?!

    Posted by ACOOK 11/05/2007 @ 5:35pm

    i think he was driving the drunks..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:39pm

31. who is the biggest drug dealer in CDN?

    the government!

    tax the smoke, tax the booze, tax all the drugs.

    cats use catnip. goats eat rotten apples. people drink beer.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:41pm

32. posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/05/2007 @ 5:41pm

    And some of the people who drink beer wind up in the emergency room or in the ICU ward.

    Posted by ACook at 11/05/2007 @ 5:46pm

33. Posted by ACOOK 11/05/2007 @ 5:46pm

    ain't that the truth.

    education is key.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:47pm

34. I flout the conventions of any and all societies.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 4:11pm

    so, you drive on the wrong side of the road...........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 5:59pm

35. pot tax, whore tax, fat tax, cig tax...whatever...just let all the oney go toward health care...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/05/2007 @ 2:44pm

    Ideally, it should, but your way too trusting of the government. In Ohio, the money that was made in the class-action tobacco settlement is paying for.....Auto emissions testing. Is it any wonder why most conservatives (rightly) wish to abolish as much government as possible.

    Posted by Sliver at 11/05/2007 @ 6:06pm

36. Posted by SLIVER 11/05/2007 @ 6:06pm

    what's wrong with emissions testing?

    tobacco, emissions both mess up the lungs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 6:51pm

37. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/05/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Sorry, CHIMI...ain't buying it.

    Illegally working, you risk even Colombian authorities throwing your ass out of the country.

    No...again, not buying it. I figure you have a nice fat bank account (or trust fund) to draw on.

    After all, how much money could you be making as a "blogosphere travelogue" guy?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 7:34pm

38. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/05/2007 @ 5:35pm

    Happy to see that cut entirely, FZ.

    But then, we'd catch hell from the Colombians (and soft-hearted liberals) for "not doing our share" on foreign aid.

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 7:36pm

39. what's wrong with emissions testing?

    tobacco, emissions both mess up the lungs.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/05/2007 @ 6:51pm

    Where should I start?

    Considering that there is a $.50 tax on every gallon of gasoline sold, you'd think that there is enough tax revenue on auto related usage to fund auto related emissions testing, no?

    Emissions testing is done in only about 12 of 88 counties, with the capital and most populated area (City of Columbus and Franklin county) exempt from all emissions testing. Hmmmmm.... If the threat of emissions is so dire, but not dire enough to cover the entire state's air quality, and that of the most densely populated urban areas....

    Less than a 1% failure rate on emissions testing annually over the last 2 decades suggest an entirely worthless program. In order to quell the public outcry of citizens paying for a program that yields little, if any results, it was turned over to governments to pay for out of tobacco settlement money.

    What does tobacco have to do with auto emissions??

    Why you libs continue to think that there is any difference (morally or otherwise) when it comes to the motives and machinations of either Big Business or Big Government still makes me chuckle. The only difference that I can see is that Big Business , in most cases, requires voluntary participation (choice) while Big Government is mandatory (no choice).

    Posted by Sliver at 11/05/2007 @ 7:39pm

40. ...while Big Government is mandatory (no choice).

    Posted by SLIVER 11/05/2007 @ 7:39pm

    I'm glad to see SLIVER is pro-choice, atleast!

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 9:19pm

41. Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 7:36pm

    actually, most of the money is to fund violence.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 9:59pm

42. Posted by MADLIB 11/05/2007 @ 9:38pm

    actually, tobacco is quite noxious. it's a pesticide, you know.

    here, they've passed a non-smoking law for public places, and as a musician, i couldn't be happier.

    i smoke occasionally and enjoy it.

    my mother, a heavy smoker, lived in an apartment and one could smell her apartment after getting off the elevator. i felt sorry for her neighbours.

    i agree that all drugs should be legal and taxed. but they also must be regulated.

    do you want a meth lab in your neighbours house.

    btw cigarette smoke (even second hand) is far more toxic than the polluted air in any north american city.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 10:05pm

43. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/05/2007 @ 9:59pm

    President Uribe is using our money to fund violence?

    Odd....he must be one of those evil, loathed-by-the-people dictator types, right?

    Posted by Mask at 11/05/2007 @ 10:36pm

44. Posted by MASK 11/05/2007 @ 10:36pm

    82.3% of the $ is for Military and Police Assistance Programs and i doubt mr. uribe has much say in how it's spent.

    i know uribe has high approval ratings in his country. i imagine after 35 years of civil war, a strong hand is wanted by the people desperate for change.

    however, read this. [worldpress.org]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/05/2007 @ 10:52pm

45. WHORE TAX :-) lol lol :-) !!lol!!!

    always use protection, plus have the self confidence so that you don't wind up going to a whore

    Posted by Waltz at 11/06/2007 @ 02:06am

46. Surely you see the difference between abortion and the death penalty?

    And as for guns, the second ammendment exists so that the people can protect ourselves from the government. I fail to see the logic in allowing the government to take away that protection.

    Do you actually trust politicians that much Wolfgang1? I sure don't.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 11/05/2007 @ 3:51pm

    FREIHEIT,

    I know the difference between the death penalty and abortion. But, the so called religious right which opposes abortion so much doesn't evidently.

    Here's the arguement. They say all life is sacred, even the unborn fetus. If all life is sacred, so is Joe Bob the killer in prison. Taking his life is as much an act of murder by society as taking the unborn fetuses life.

    Here's another little catch. What if Joe Bob didn't actually commit the crime and then is sentenced to death? Now society is responsible not only for incarceration of an innocent man, but now it has murdered that innocent man. Granted, probably 99% of the people on death row are guilty, but their is always the chance that an innocent person is looking at the gallows for a crime they didn't commit. The bible thumper crowd are all ready to defend potential life before they would protect someone who is actually alive and functioning.

    As for the second ammendment, semi automatic and automatic weapons should be for military use only. And, the right to bear arms was against a foreign militia, not our own government. The Red Coats were the foreign militia.

    I would also point out that all these redneck idiots who think they are going to defend themselves with their hunting guns and a a room full of weapons against the military are completely out of their friggin heads. If the U.S. military or even the police forces turned on us, we'd be up shit creek without a paddle, NRA or no NRA. Handguns against C130 gunships are hardly a match.

    Have you ever seen what those things can do? They can hit an area roughly the size of a football field with bullets covering every square inch of that field. If you are in that area, you're dead. And I didn't even mention, bombs, chemical weapons and everything else the military and national guard have at their disposal. Most of these idiots running around with their NRA bumper stickers would crap their pants and hand their guns over pronto if the military turned on us.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/06/2007 @ 07:03am

47. Whore Tax, all for it, lets get some more money out of the religious right!!

    ****Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/06/2007 @ 07:03am

    wolf, ever notice how the gun totin fanatics always miss the "...well regulated militia..." part of the 2nd amendment?

    I'm a gun toter, I have zero problems registering my firearms with the constabulary. Hopefully it will let them know to knock first.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2007 @ 07:49am

48. Note how the cons are cool with corporations knowingly selling hazardous products to our children.

    Who will think of the Children!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2007 @ 07:51am

49. According to Chimpy, the lawyers of Pakistan are planning attacks on America!!

    Watch out!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2007 @ 07:55am

50. "You tell me that the privatized criminal justice sector of our society is above the law of profit and I'll sell you something you wish you never bought."

    Posted by STEVE FOSTER 11/05/2007 @ 4:06pm

    We are on the same page, Steve.

    And what could be more profitable in a for-profit "corrections" system than a non-violent inmate?

    Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2007 @ 08:58am