More about the United States and some about Singapore - Response to Janamitra Devan's article in this issue of Business Horizons

Business Horizons, March-April, 1990 by Harvey C. Bunke

In the past seven years, more than 100,000 Americans lost their lives in alcohol-related crashes. In an effort to combat drunk driving, a number of states have resorted to setting up occasional checkpoints at locations with a history of alcohol-related accidents. The use of these sobriety checkpoints customarily involves a line of traffic in which state police officers engage each driver in a brief conversation, looking for telltale signs of intoxication. In Michigan these stops average 90 seconds. Yet a Michigan court concluded that the "fright and surprise" experienced by a driver approaching a scene of bright lights with signs announcing "Traffic Sobriety Checkpoint" constituted a subjective intrusion upon the interests of liberty and ruled that the use of checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable search and seizure."

Many on both the left and right are in agreement in defending absolute rights of individuals. Recently we have heard voices, the most well known of which is perhaps Milton Friedman, arguing for the decriminalization of the sale of illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Criminalization, Friedman argues, is not working. It costs society more than legalization would. More importantly, he writes, government has no right to interfere with the free choices that do not interfere with the free choices of others. Whatever the merits of Friedman's economic arguments, and they are highly debatable, individual "free choice" cannot be the sole criterion for determining good. In our society, where traditions rapidly fade and constitutional rights are absolute, where everyone is free to select his or her own lifestyle, where everything goes except what is illegal, laws making drugs such as cocaine and heroin illegal are needed if for no other reason than to proclaim that we as a community are opposed to their use.

Friedman believes that if drugs were legalized, the operations of the market would improve the social climate by reducing crime and, through monies raised from taxes on drugs, increasing the number of treatment centers. But there are some things the market cannot do: it cannot teach communal values or a sense of morality on such matters as marriage, child-rearing, education, duty, and compassion. Indeed, the impersonal market places emphasis on maximizing self-interest. To the extent that the market has anything to say about personal morality, in emphasizing individual rights it delivers a negative message that undermines communal values.

Society without human character is incomprehensible. How character is shaped depends upon a culture's level of shared values with respect to responsibility, dignity, and empathy. We may disagree on what that level should be, but certainly it should not include granting social permission to use crack and heroin.

Along with absolute rights of the individual, the legal profession has evolved procedural absolutism in criminal law. The schools, in attempting to preserve order, are hampered by our fixation on civil rights. If a school attempts to ban electronic beepers - a primary tool in the drug trade - it ends up in court. Nor can school officials confidently install airport-style devices to check for metal guns and knives. Since everyone, as long as he behaves legally, has an absolute right to choose his own lifestyle, we may no longer use vagrancy laws to preserve order on the streets; such laws are unconsitutional.