I’ll start out by saying that I’m not a drug user, and never have been, for several reasons.  First, I don’t like my mind to be impaired by drugs.  I don’t find that feeling to be enjoyable, and many of my hobbies (cars, motorcycles, flying light aircraft, SCUBA diving, blogging) are not compatible with an altered state of mind.  Indeed, I dislike mental impairment so much that I declined to take Vicodin after having my wisdom teeth removed, and instead toughed it out with Tylenol.  Secondly, drugs are addictive, and I don’t wish to become addicted to any substance.  Thirdly, the penalties for being caught in possession of drugs are severe, and I don’t want to tarnish my good name with a criminal conviction.  Finally, drugs are a waste of money.  I would much rather spend my hard earned money on something useful.  With that out of the way, allow me to explain my thoughts on our drug laws.

Prohibition, the banning of alcohol, ended 75 years ago in the United States. Sadly, we as a country seem to have forgotten its most important lesson: Banning a popular product doesn’t work. Rather than obeying the ban, many Americans just purchased illegal alcohol.  The bootlegging industry boomed, and gangsters like Al Capone made a fortune.  The government lost out on valuable tax revenue, and instead had to spend money on the hopeless cause of suppressing the bootlegging industry.  Enriched by their liquor sales, the gangsters become more and more powerful – and more and more violent.  The end result was that Americans still drank alcohol, but it was less safe to consume, and criminals became more powerful then ever thanks to soaring bootlegging profits.  The American public eventually realized this, and repealed prohibition.  Liquor sales returned to stores and bars, where they could be heavily taxed, and the heyday of the gangsters came to an end.

Unfortunately, we as a country have forgotten this lesson.  Today, illegal drugs are banned, yet there seems to be no shortage of drugs in the United States or other countries.  Just as the gangsters from years past got rich off of bootlegging, today’s criminal gangs (and terrorists) make a fortune supplying illegal drugs.  Wherever these gangs go, violence follows, with innocent people often getting caught in the crossfire.  Those who support our current drug laws will say that drugs are dangerous for their users, and destroy lives.  I think that is certainly true for some drugs, however a ban on drugs clearly isn’t working.  Also note that, non-drug-using people such as myself can avoid the dangers of smoking crack by just not using it; however I can’t really avoid the danger of being shot while driving down the street by drug dealing gang members who mistake me for some rival, or who just have bad aim. Worse yet, searching for drugs has become an excuse for cops to kick down the wrong people’s front doors, leading to a situation where innocent people (and cops) pay a heavy price.  Recovering some marijuana just isn’t worth a citizen’s life, a cop’s life, or the innocent family’s dog’s life.

Our drug laws also end up permanently branding young drug users as criminals, which can prevent them from moving on to become productive members of society.  For example, even the most minor drug offenses can prevent a student from getting financial aid for school.  That law has prevented over 200,000 Americans from being able to receive financial aid since it went into effect in 2000.  It would seem to me that keeping a person out of higher education might make them more likely to abuse drugs, and seems to undermine our societal interest in turning young people educated and law abiding citizens.  Similarly, a felony drug conviction when a person is 18 years old can have long lasting effects upon their ability to get a job for the rest of their life.

As far as a comprehensive solution to the drug situation, I don’t pretend to have one.  I wouldn’t want to see crack cocaine sold over the counter at stores, but I also think that our current war on drugs isn’t in society’s best interest.  At the very least, I think that we need to put an end to policies that result in police raiding the wrong homes, as well as laws that prevent drug users from cleaning up their lives, going to school, and then becoming employed and productive members of society.

Gay rights is a privacy and autonomy issue
Just as in the cases of abortion and gun rights, the fundamental issues are the rights, privacy, and autonomy of the individuals.   The Government simply has no legitimate interest or right to intrude into the homes and personal lives of consenting adults.   For me, the inquiry ends here, however I’ve included the discussion below for the sake of completeness.

Gay rights don’t harm heterosexual relationships
I’m a heterosexual male who is engaged to the woman I’ve dated for nearly 5 years.  I’ve lived in the Chicago area for the majority of my life, and had gay/lesbian friends and colleagues.  Being around gay people has not “turned me gay”, as one’s sexual orientation cannot be changed.  Nor has there been a sudden collapse of heterosexual marriages in states like MA or CT that have legalized gay marriage.

Gay rights may actually help heterosexual relationship
There are countless cases of gay individuals hiding their sexual preference and getting married, only to have their marriages fail due to the fact that they will never be happy with a person of the opposite sex.  The result is a broken family, a hurt spouse, and often hurt and confused children.  Legalizing gay marriage will take some of the pressure off of these gay people who feel compelled to enter into a heterosexual marriage that they know isn’t right for them.  We can expect that this will result in fewer traditional marriages failing.

Gay rights don’t harm children
A person’s sexual orientation is not a choice, so it should stand to reason that were two gay individuals to raise a child, the child would not be “turned gay”.  Studies have shown that this is the case, and even gone as far as to find that the children of lesbians are more tolerant that the children of heterosexuals.  Being raised by gay parents doesn’t harm children.

The real reasons people oppose gay rights
I’m convinced that the real reason that people oppose gay rights do so because of their own unfounded prejudices, and/or due to the fact that they are secretly gay and ashamed of the fact.
1. Prejudiced – I cannot find one rational reason why a heterosexual person would want to prohibit gay people from marrying and enjoying the other rights of heterosexuals.  The only reasons that I can find relate to prejudices that are based upon religious beliefs, or other personal moral beliefs that should not be forced upon other members of society.  Just as atheists have no right to force their views on those who believe in god, religious people have no right to force their religious beliefs upon the rest of society.  Separation of church and state serves an important purpose in our society.
2. Secretly gay themselves and ashamed – Many of the most anti-gay-rights legislators in congress have turned out to be (allegedly) gay.  For example, senator Larry Craig was an outspoken opponent of gay rights, and was reportedly arrested for gay conduct in a public bathroom.  Troy King, the anti gay rights Attorney General of Alabama was reportedly allegedly caught having sex with his male assistant.  I could go on listing examples, but the point should be clear.

Note: This article is necessarily brief, as the riggors of law school and work prevent me from spending the 100+ pages I would need to discuss every aspect of this issue.  Those who wish to read a nearly exhaustive analysis of gay rights are enouraged to read the MA Supreme Court opinion in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).

First, one of the many examples of the tactics I’m referring to:

BERWYN HEIGHTS, Md. (AP) — Mayor Cheye Calvo got home from work, saw a package addressed to his wife on the front porch and brought it inside, putting it on a table.
Suddenly, police with guns drawn kicked in the door and stormed in, shooting to death the couple’s two dogs and seizing the unopened package.
In it were 32 pounds of marijuana. But the drugs evidently didn’t belong to the couple.
Police say the couple appeared to be innocent victims of a scheme by two men to smuggle millions of dollars worth of marijuana by having it delivered to about a half-dozen unsuspecting recipients.
The two men under arrest include a FedEx deliveryman; investigators said the deliveryman would drop off a package outside a home, and the other man would come by a short time later and pick it up.

It would appear to me that such raids are contrary to the public good, and needlessly endanger citizens and the police. When the door to a person’s home is kicked in, the residents are reasonably in fear of a home invasion by criminals.  Even if the police announce their presence by yelling “POLICE!”, there is no assurance that is is not just criminals attempting to prevent the residents from calling 911 or running to grab a gun.  The police officers are also reasonably afraid for their lives, and as a result may be too quick to shoot first and ask questions later.  The result can be tragic and preventable killings of citizens, their pets, or police officers, not to mention the damage to property.

Balancing the above harm against the benefits to society also seems to indicate that such raids are generally not worth the cost.  Seizing drugs in this particular manner does not seem to be worth the killing of a family’s pets, and the endangering of a dozen lives.  Nor does it seem to be worth the emotional harm these people have suffered, and will remember for the rest of their lives. Furthermore “collateral damage” such as this reduces a community’s confidence in its police, which is a major problem in and of itself.

Instead of kicking down the door, the police can use normal knock-and-announce tactics.  By knocking and allowing the home owner to verify their identity, the police could have avoided the killing of the home owners dogs, and the other trauma these innocent people suffered.  It is true that knocking and announcing their presence will allow some criminals time to flush drugs down the toilet; but I would rather have some criminals flush some drugs, then to have innocent citizens’ lives endangered or pets killed.  It is also true that knocking and announcing will result in some criminals having time to get their guns and shoot at police; however it is better that the police (who are wearing body armor and paid to do so) take that risk than innocent citizens be shot by overly nervous police officers during a raid of their home.  Don’t think that I am suggesting that the police should not be able to protect their own lives.  Instead, I am saying that if a risk to life must be borne by either a police officer who is paid, trained, and equiped to take that risk, or by a citizen in their own home, it is wrong for that risk to be shifted to the citizen.

A perfect example of this injustice is the case of Kevin Fox, whose daughter Riley Fox was sexually assaulted and killed.  Kevin fox was arrested by the police and held in jail.  The media vilified him, with front page stories, talk show segments, and relentless coverage in the evening news.  The police recovered DNA evidence from the body of Riley fox, however it was not tested for months.  When it was finally tested, the DNA results conclusively proved that Kevin Fox was not the person who  sexually assaulted and killed Riley Fox.  Kevin Fox was released after 8 months in jail.

Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence.  We as a society like to pride ourselves as being “civilized,” yet ruining the reputation and life of someone who is not had their day in court is anything but civilized.  I have seen some fellow Americans turn their noses up at societies whose justice consists of stoning by an angry mob, yet these same people take time out of their day to demonize the people who have not yet been tried or convicted of any crime (which means they have not had the opportunity to defend themselves).  I would say that the harm inflicted by being falsely accused of killing a member, then having that accusation publicized across the country, has to be at least as great as the harm that many angry mobs inflict in developing countries.

One final note when it comes to high profile suspects, such as Drew Peterson: A good lawyer will advise his or client to refrain from talking to the media, or even talking to friends and family.  The reason for this is simple: even an innocent person might say something that could be misconstrued or twisted by the prosecution, harming that suspect if the case goes to trial.  Furthermore, a malicious member of the media or former friend may lie about the content of the discussion, so it is better to just not have the discussion in the first place.  To a layman, who is not familiar with this standard legal advice, this makes the defendant seem like they have “something to hide,” when in fact they are simply following prudent advice.

Innocent until proven guilty really should mean something.

Note: I am not suggesting that the news media should refrain from providing news about individuals who are charged with a crime.  Instead, I’m saying that such reporters and commentators should stick to the facts, and not vilify the person who has not yet been convicted.  Even more importantly, we as members of the public should not rush to judge until there has been a trial.

Although I agree with many of the changes that labor unions brought about during the the last century, I am generally opposed to the labor unions of today.  This is because of the way that many unions extract substantial dues from their members, while often failing to provide benefits commensurate with those dues.  Additionally, the way in which union management is often corrupt or disingenuous further makes me belief that unions are generally a bad thing these days.

Labor unions once served an important purpose
During the previous century, labor unions and their supporters brought about important changes to the plight of working people.  A 40 hour work week, overtime, compensation for injury on the job, medical leave, and other similar advances can be credited to labor unions and related labor rights supporters.  I applaud those changes.

Nowadays labor unions are a net loss for workers and society as a whole
Sadly, today I see little real benefit in labor unions – but I do see many drawbacks.  I have friends who belong to unions, and end up paying a good percentage of their income in union dues.  In exchange, the union negotiates for rather trivial benefits, such as a pop machine.  In other cases, I’ve seen unions arrange a “two tiered” system for pay and benefits, whereby longstanding employees are treated considerably better than newer employees who do the exact same work.  Worse yet, I have seen unions make a point of defending some of the worst employees, forcing management to keep lazy and ineffective workers on the payroll – which hurts the company and all of its employees.  The net results have been loss of productivity, lower pay for the hard working employees, and money wasted on union dues with no real benefit for the employees.  I am also troubled by the competitive disadvantage that unions impose upon American companies, compared to their foreign competitors.

1. It is morally wrong to kill a human, except in self defense
First and foremost, i believe it is wrong to kill a human except for in self defense. Given that belief, it seems to me that capital punishment is the pinnacle of wrongful killing, since it is by definition the killing of a person who is physically restrained and not an imminent threat to anyone, and already convicted and removed from society, therefore not a likely threat in the future. Making matters worse, the condemned is not being killed by a single, emotional human who “snapped,” but by the deliberate, cold, and calculating machinery of the State. That cold blooded killing on the part of the Governmental strikes me as particularly wrong, give the fact that our legal system sees murders committed in cold blood to be worse than murders committed in the “heat of passion.”

2. Capital punishment sets a bad example for all of society, including the children
It seems hypocritical for the State to prohibit its citizens from killing except in self defense, and then to simultaneously authorize the killing of people who pose no imminent threat, and who can be imprisoned for life to prevent any future threat. That sends a double message, that I believe can lead to violence on the parts of children and even adults. On the part of children, it may cause them to believe that physical violence is warranted in any situation other than self defense. On the part of adults, it may lead to that similar belief, or perhaps worse, a subconscious belief that violence is somehow morally right, given the fact that it is sanctioned by our Government.

3. Capital punishment is racist in its application
Study after study has shown that the death penalty is applied in a racist manner. Minorities are more likely to be sentenced to die than white people, even when the other factors are accounted for. Given this fact, and the limited to non-existent benefits of capital punishment, I don’t think that we as a society can justify continuing this racist practice.

4. Capital punishment can’t be justified the way other punishments can be justified
Other punishment, such as imprisonment, can generally be justified as a means to prevent future crimes. A criminal who is imprisoned is generally prevented from committing another crime during his incarceration. Capital punishment does not do a better job of either punishing a criminal, or of stopping them from committing a crime in the future. From the punishment perspective, a criminal who is dead can no longer be punished, and is not able to come to the conclusion that their crime was a wrong they should regret. A criminal who is held in a secure prison for life is stopped from committing crimes just as well as an executed criminal. The death penalty just doesn’t do a better job of either punishing or preventing crime, than could be accomplished with lifetime imprisonment.

5. Those later found to be innocent can’t be brought back to life
Perhaps most tragic are the cases of people proven to be innocent, after they have already been executed. For these innocent people and their families, there is no way of even beginning to make things right. At least an innocent person who was wrongfully jailed can be released, apologized to, compensated financially, and given a chance to try and resume their life. An executed person cannot, and their family is left with the realization that the state has killed a loved one, while the true criminal walks free. Even the prosecution witnesses may be emotionally scared for life, knowing that their testimony helped to kill an innocent person. Given this horrible outcome, I am again unable to find a justification for the capital punishment, given the limited if non-existent benefits to society of executing people.
Also, for those who think this is not a frequent event: Sadly, it is not that rare for the innocent to be convicted of horrendous murders, as one county in Texas has freed 26 death row inmates after they were exonerated. Even more horrific is the realization that many murders don’t have DNA evidence that could be tested to exonerate the condemned, or that this evidence has since been thrown away.

6. Capital punishment is too expensive
The fact is, the death penalty costs more than imprisoning a criminal for life. This is primarily due to the more rigorous appeals process. Given the limited to non-existent benefits of capital punishment, I don’t see how the death penalty can be justified from a financial standpoint.

7. Capital punishment doesn’t deter crime
Data indicates that capital punishment does not deter crime, and crime rates in the US are higher than most countries that have abolished the death penalty. Simply put, criminals commit crimes because they think they will get away with the crime. Worse yet are the criminals who are addicted to and using drugs, who are not in the state of mind that they are amenable to reason or concern over being caught. Then there are the criminals who simply don’t care if they are caught, often the ones who will commit murder and then suicide in a mass shooting.

We Can Build and Fund Schools or Jails

Empirical data collected over many years, from around the world, shows that low education is strongly correlated with higher likelihood that an individual will become a criminal. This shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that a lot of crime is committed by people who believe that crime is the only way they can get ahead in life. This does not excuse their intentional violations of the law, or mean that we can stop all crime, but does indicate that we as a society have ways of reducing the number of criminals in our midsts.

It is Better to Educate Children than to be Robbed by Them Later

Even those people who don’t feel that they have any duty or obligation to help educate the children in our society should still support a good, free, public education system out of pure self interest. The reason for that is their own personal safety and peace of mind. As many people who have been robbed will attest, the worst part is usually not the loss of money. It is the fear that one’s life is about to end or change forever due to permanent injury. It is the way the robbery or other crime is not soon forgotten, and how that shakes one’s confidence. If funding schools will reduce the likelihood of being robbed or suffering other crimes, then it may very well be better to pay the money in taxes for education, than to pay it to a criminal at gunpoint.

Altruism and Decency

It has been said that one can measure a society by the manner in which it treats it lowest member. Applying this to the question of education, I think that it is sad that some children are “punished” with a substandard education due to the poor financial and life choices their parents have made. Don’t think that this is my primary reason for supporting free public education, since I’m far from a bleeding heart type person, and believe in personal responsibility.

Note: I have had a reader suggest that my support of a free public education system cannot be reconciled with my dislike of unions, as teachers unions tend to dominate public schools.  I don’t find there to be a conflict here, and I still believe that well funded public schools are essential to ensuring a well educated populace that can grow up to be responsible citizens. The issues within public education certainly need to be addressed, however I don’t see defunding public schools as the answer.

I am opposed to gun control.  I base this upon the fact that gun control doesn’t reduce crime, does leave people who obey the law defenseless, and infringes upon the 2nd Amendment’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

Gun Control Doesn’t Reduce Crime

Cities such as Chicago and the District of Columbia have rampant gun crime, despite their strict gun control.  It is obvious to me that crime is caused by deep seated social problems, rather than by the presence of guns.  I’m also convinced that there is a small portion of society that is just bent on criminality, and would commit crimes even if they had economic opportunity and an upbringing in a law abiding household. Until those underlying social issues, such as poverty, gangs, and a lack of education are addressed, there will be crime, and banning guns won’t change that fact.

Gun Control Leaves People Who Obey the Law Defenseless

Criminals seem to ignore gun control laws, just as they ignore any other law.  The people who don’t commit crimes would obey the gun control laws, just as they obey any other law.  The net result seems to be that the criminals will still have guns, and the law abiding citizens won’t, which will leave those law abiding citizens vulnerable.

Gun Control Infringes the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Just as I support all of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the bill of rights, I support the 2nd amendment.  Gun control infringes this, and I just can’t support a policy that infringes a fundamental right.

More information about this issue can be seen on my other website here.

My General Thoughts on the Right to Abortion

I believe the right to abortion during the early phases of pregnancy is a fundamental right possessed by all women, regardless of marital status. I reach this conclusion using reasoning that is similar to the United State Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Roe v. Wade case. But the purpose of this article is not to restate longstanding jurisprudence; it is to state my views, so here goes:

Why I Support Abortion Rights:

1. I believe the Government has no right to invade the privacy of a woman’s uterus. There are few things more sacred, and more fundamentally private, than the right to have one’s internal organs not searched, seized, or controlled by the Government. This is not just my reasoning, but a central part of the Roe v. Wade reasoning. Basically, I believe that this right to privacy trumps the Government’s interest preventing abortions. Similarly, since the Government does not have the right to invade the privacy of a woman’s uterus, they cannot give this right to the woman’s spouse/parents/etc. In fact, I believe so strongly in this right to privacy, that I would be satisfied to resolve the abortion question without considering any further reasoning, but I’ll still list my other reasons below.

2. I believe that the Government should not be able to compel a woman to be an incubator for 9 months, and then to experience the life changing events of childbirth and child rearing. To be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy would be similar to involuntary servitude. It would ride roughshod over the woman’s right to self determination, and the right to do as she wishes with her body. It would open the flood gates for further infringement on everyone’s right to be secure in their own body.

3. I believe that abortion is somewhere between a social good, and a very necessary evil, but either way, something that is needed. The right to abortion has allowed women the ability to enter the workplace, if they so choose. They are free to pursue education and careers, without having to worry that an unwanted pregnancy would affect such plans. A woman can choose to be sexually active, and know that if her birth control method(s) fail, she will not be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. A woman now need not worry that a rapist could cause her to become a mother against her wishes. Abortion also allows a woman to avoid bringing a child into the world that she does not feel she is able to support or raise properly. Indeed, many have credited abortion rights to a reduction in crime, as the unwanted children would often receive a poor upbringing, predisposing them to criminality.

4. I believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a “life,” and is therefore not something that the Government can protect at the expense of the woman’s wishes. I say this because a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy lacks the cognition, though processes, and even the physical characteristics of a human. It does not yet have a mind. Indeed, a dog, cat, cow, or pig has a more developed brain. Were we to declare such a fetus protectable, then I don’t see how we could continue to allow the killing of animals for food.

Basically, when I weigh the interests in the woman’s privacy, the woman’s autonomy, and the social need, against the interest in protecting a fetus, I reach the conclusion that the woman’s interest should prevail.

When I *Personally* Feel Abortion is Warranted

The above discussion of why I support abortion rights should not be confused with my personal beliefs about when abortion is the right choice. I *personally* believe abortion is proper only when reliable birth control method(s) have failed, or in the case of incest/rape. But those are my personal beliefs, and I would not dream of trying to impose them upon a woman, for the reasons listed above.

I personally feel that abortion is only warranted in those cases because of ease at which birth control can be acquired. It strikes me an negligent or reckless to not use reliable birth control methods, given the higher monetary, emotional, and medical costs which can accompany an abortion. It also strikes me as a moral wrong to be so callous with potential life, when birth control is such an easy alternative to abortions in most cases. But, I want to reiterate that my personal beliefs here do not trump the privacy and other interests of the woman, which is why I support abortion rights for all women, even if I personally feel they should have been more careful.

Conclusion

I support abortion rights for the various reasons above, with the most important reason being the woman’s right to privacy insofar as her uterus is concerned. I personally think that abortion is over used by many women, and that often they should have just used birth control to avoid the need for an abortion. However, my personal beliefs here do not trump the privacy and other interests of the woman, which is why I support abortion rights for all women, even if I personally feel they should have been more careful.