Essay

Wines & Vines, Feb, 1991 by Philip Hiaring, Sr.

RIGHTS

Ever wonder at human nature and politics? A few funny things have happened to me on the way to the office. I will list some. Maybe they have occurred to you, too. I say "funny." Tragic would be more like it.

First, the mindset that if you make the driving age 21 you won't have any DUI cases under that age. Never mind that we already have said that 18-year-olds are adults, entitled to vote and enter contracts ... and fight for us in the Persian Gulf. Never mind that a parallel to this sorry state of affairs would be if we banned driving by persons over 65, on the wrong assumption that this would mean fewer accidents. Never mind that the 18-21 age group, tired of being hassled, can buy "crack" on the city street corners, at bargain prices and with no questions asked.

Second, the belief that if we hang up enough warning signs and slap on enough warning labels, that pregnant women won't drink and men won't operate machinery ... and a miniscule fraction of the public subject to sulfite allergies won't drink wine. Never mind the fact that by this time people in wine-traditional countries in Europe would all be idiots.

Third, the notion that road blocks, a police state tactic, are nevertheless justified on the grounds that they reduce drunk driving. Never mind that a citizen's right to travel the nation's streets and highways without being pulled over is violated. Never mind that the number of drunks caught is puny, compared with the number of innocent drivers stopped and quizzed.

Fourth, the wowsers' ignorance of history and commonsense in believing that de facto prohibition can be achieved by hiking taxes and limiting availability of licensed beverages. Never mind that we tried it once and it failed-except for mobsters and bootleggers who made potsful of money. Never mind that Finland, Norway and Sweden persist in trying it now ... and their sugar sales to do-it-yourselfers have never been higher. Never mind that when you push taxes too high you kill the golden goose.

Fifth, the Alice-in-Wonderland fantasy of verdict first, trial later" that has the government saying you can utter only bad things about your product, that if you try at least to balance the scales by saying good things-even if true-you are somehow misleading the public. The irony is that most of the "funny things" cited above are justified on

the theory that the rights of society are superior to the rights of the individual. Even the Supreme Court has used this argument in defense of the federal government's blackmailing of the states, by withholding road funds if the states don't pass 21-year-old drinking laws.

What happened to the constitutional rights of individuals?

When I read the book 1984" a long time ago I scoffed at the notion it ever could happen here. I don't know about me. But ...

"Big Brother is watching you."

Why?