

American Lawbreaking - Herring
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/

======
Watch
This past Friday we had a game of Capture the Flag in my city's financial
district. About 600 people came out... no warning given to the cops, no
permission, nothing. Was a good time, our side won 2-0 (go blue!) thanks to
some solid defense. We were warned at the start of the game to obey traffic
laws (ie, don't jaywalk), because the police response to events like this
isn't freaking out and cracking down like you'd expect, or saying "go have
some fun" like others would expect. Rather, it's "Sweet, we'll make quota in
one night!"

Afterward I went to a parkour jam in a nearby district park with some well
placed ledges that lead to the potential for a lot of stunts. After 20
minutes, we noticed a cop car on the street, partially hidden by a wall --
looked like they were watching us, so, as an inquisitive sociologist, I went
over to ask them what was up.

As it turns out, they were there for an unrelated reason -- to watch that road
because of an illegal left turn onto it out of the entertainment district.
Basically the way their trap works is that everyone is drinking in their
vehicles, and the illegal turn gives the cops the opportunity to check the
vehicle for alcohol, and let them off with a warning if they don't find any.
Pretty clever, really.

I asked them about parkour, pointing to my friends in the park behind me
climbing, jumping and rolling around. They told me that technically it's
illegal under a bylaw that bans games in public areas -- the same law which
renders ball-hockey in the street illegal. Then they went on to say that this
gives them full authority to break it up and issue tickets if they wanted to,
but police policy is to only ever enforce this law if they receive complaints.

Thus, in this one evening, I saw three approaches to laws and law enforcement:

1) Policy designed for monetary gain; if they really wanted to stop the
jaywalking, they could've just told us all to go home, but handing out tickets
for it helps them make quota, so they let us play.

2) Laws which exist as an excuse to investigate for other laws; by having
apparently unreasonable traffic restrictions, they can crack down on drunk
driving without invading people's privacy.

3) Laws which exist as an excuse to punish related but unlegislatable
behaviour; in the case of both parkour and ballhockey, the issue is "creating
a public nuisance," not the specific behaviour being done. However, a nuisance
is hard to define objectively, so when it, in the mind of the cops, becomes
subjectively a nuisance, they instead use another, easy to define but
unreasonable, law.

In all three cases we have laws that aren't actually intended to prevent the
behaviour they prohibit, but each does so in a different way... and that was
just one evening and discussions I had with three police officers, I'm sure
many more examples abound.

------
byrneseyeview
_That's why drug legalization is happening in a wholly different way. Over the
last two decades, the FDA has become increasingly open to drugs designed for
the treatment of depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their
nature, likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is the
product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice that began under
Clinton and has increased under Bush. But another part is the widespread
public acceptance of the idea that the effects drug users have always been
seeking in their illicit drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now
"treatments" as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's
commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because they're depressed
or want to function better at work, that's drug trafficking; but taking
antidepressants for similar purposes is practicing medicine._

This guy really needs to read more Erowid if he thinks that pharmaceuticals
are closely matching the effects of many drugs. As far as I know there are
non-Schedule I opiates and stimulants, and basically all of the
benzodiazepines are legal-but-controlled. But the pharmaceutical industry is
not exactly stumbling over itself to create a legal version of LSD or
prescription Salvia or one-a-day his-n-hers Ecstasy doses, and I don't know of
any legal analogue to marijuana (much less any particular strain).

~~~
iamelgringo
_In the drug context, asking Congress to legalize cocaine or repeal the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is a fool's errand._

Medical cocaine is legal and has been used for years to treat nose bleeds.

------
gills
You know you're in trouble when the thugs are in the street waving their arms
proclaiming vice is virtue, and a system of selective enforcement by a ruling
class is a practical and acceptable solution.

~~~
river_styx
You just described basically any place at any point in history.

~~~
wheels
You must live in LA.

------
nuclear_eclipse
> _Every week, in various ways, you probably violate the copyright law. How?
> ... Or if you ... play DVDs at a house party._

Isn't that perfectly legal under the cape of Fair Use? In fact, the article
doesn't even _mention_ fair use, and seems to blatently ignore the fact that
we as consumers have the _right_ to "copyright infringement" for personal
uses, like mix tapes/discs, or private, non-profit showings and sharing with
friends.

> _It features news on the Potter films and books, essays on the works of J.K.
> Rowling, and a large gallery of fan art. It is also, at least to a copyright
> lawyer, an orgy of copyright infringement—including massive unauthorized use
> of characters, images, and the creation of "derivative works," like fan
> art._

Once again, isn't most of this considering Fair Use, in the same way that
parody of a copyrighted work is considered fair use?

Or am I completely off my rocker and misunderstanding the purpose and coverage
of Fair Use?

------
ars
I wonder if godel has any say here: it seems to me that it's impossible to
actually create a perfect set of laws.

You can't legalize "it" (speed limit, drugs, copyright, whatever), but zero
tolerance enforcement doesn't work. On the other hand if you set guidelines
(we'll tolerate small amounts) people will go right to the line - so you
don't.

Instead you look the other way most of the time.

And it works.

------
Herring
When you get to the section, be sure to look up Nixon's response to that
Commission's report.

------
username2
How can a law abiding trucking companying compete with all those speed limit
breaking truckers: UPS, FedEx, DHL, USPS, ...?

------
LPTS
Fuck the police. An odd mix of sadistic bullies and good guys who cover for
the bullies out of a misguided sense of kinship.

Viva la revolution!

