Tag: hit&run

The movement to ban straws is starting to swallow up whole countries. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Monday that his Liberal government would ban plastic straws and other harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021.

“Canadians know first-hand the impacts of plastic pollution, and are tired of seeing their beaches, parks, streets, and shorelines littered with plastic waste,” Trudeau said in a press release. “We owe it to our kids to keep the environment clean and safe for generations to come.”

Few policy specifics were offered Monday. The government’s press release mentions its intention to ban plastic straws, cutlery, and plastic bags, and to work with provincial and territorial governments to develop waste-reducing standards for plastic manufacturers.

Whatever specific action Trudeau’s government does take, we’re assured, “will be grounded in scientific evidence.” But one statistic cited in Monday’s press release is less than sound.

In a bullet-pointed list of “quick facts,” there’s a claim that Canadians throw away close to 57 million plastic straws a day. The same figure popped up in Vancouver, British Columbia’s “Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy,” published in May 2018. The city banned straws the same month.

A footnote in that report explains that this particular straw stat is derived from U.S. recycling company Ecocycle’s estimate of American straw usage, which Ecocycle puts at 500 million straws a day. Assume the same per capita usage among Canadians and adjust for the country’s smaller population, and you get 57 million straws a day.

That seems reasonable on the surface. The trouble is that the underlying 500 million figure was the product of a 2011 phone survey of straw manufacturers conducted by Milo Cress, who was then 9 years old.

Professional estimates of American straw usage vary, but they all put the number lower than 500 million straws a day.

The English-speaking world is particularly bad at straw math. Governments in the U.K. and Australia have relied on inaccurate and unsourced statistics on straw usage to justify bans. One could argue that one bad stat or two doesn’t actually undermine the broader environmental change Trudeau and company are trying to achieve. But other numbers do.

According to a 2015 study, the U.S. is responsible for about 1 percent of annual marine plastic waste; the vast majority of such waste comes from East Asian countries. Canada’s contribution to this admittedly serious problem is smaller still.

Banning plastic straws and plastic bags in the U.S. and particularly Canada will have a negligible effect on the world’s oceans. Efforts to combat localized plastic litter, meanwhile, are best left to local governments, who hopefully can find less coercive means of cleaning up beaches and river banks.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2XDt6rt
via IFTTT

Santa Clara University’s student government has voted against granting official status to the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), on the grounds that the group’s goals—bringing conservative speakers to the California campus—would contribute to an unsafe climate for marginalized students.

“I also think that the presence of YAF would further marginalize minority students on campus and if anything makes minority students feel more unsafe or targeted,” said one student senator in a statement.

Another student senator lamented that YAF might bring conservative pundit Ben Shapiro to campus and Shapiro’s presence would cause “emotional harm.”

The vote was 13–13, which fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to confer formal recognition, according to The College Fix.

Recognized student groups have access to university funding. The school is therefore engaging in viewpoint discrimination as long as it denies YAF this status because of the organization’s ideology. This conflicts with the private university’s stated commitment to free speech, and so the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is calling on the college to overturn the student government’s decision:

When a student government recognizes (or refuses to recognize) student organizations, it exercises authority delegated to it by the college or university. That authority is necessarily circumscribed by the legal commitments made by the institution, and the institution must ensure that its agents do not exceed their authority. That is the case here, and [Santa Clara University]’s leadership must take steps—as it has before, and as its institutional policies expressly permit—to uphold the university’s laudable commitment to freedom of expression.

 

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2KF16A9
via IFTTT

Donald Trump’s latest tariff brinksmanship has ended more with a set of whimpers than with a bang, for which those of us who favor and participate in mutual gains from trade can breathe a sigh of relief, if only temporarily.

But what have we learned from this most recent round of applied mercantilism, and how does it overlap with the ongoing Deplatforming Wars, Tucker Carlson’s crush on Elizabeth Warren, and the nationalist/classical-liberal spat on the right? Such are the topics on today’s Editors’ Roundtable edition of the Reason Podcast, featuring Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman and Matt Welch. Along the way we also discuss reclaiming the word “liberal” (really!), Late Capitalism’s learned helplessness, and the many prophecies of Neal Stephenson.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Relevant links from the show:

“Trump’s Claim That Mexico Will Buy More American Agricultural Goods Is Fake News,” by Eric Boehm

“Trump’s Threatened Tariffs on Mexican Imports Might Not Happen. They Have Costs Anyway,” by Eric Boehm

“Trump’s Tariffs on Mexican Imports Would Be Biggest Tax Increase in Decades,” by Eric Boehm

“Trump’s Trade War Turns 1. Here’s What We’ve Lost,” by Eric Boehm

“Trump’s Legal Authority to Impose Tariffs,” by David Post

“Will Senate Republicans Revolt Over Trump’s Mexico Tariff Threats?” by Eric Boehm

“Becoming the Libs to Own the Libertarians: Tucker Carlson Praises Elizabeth Warren,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

“The Fight Conservatives Are Having Over Theocracy and Classical Liberalism Obscures How Beaten Their Movement Is,” by Nick Gillespie

“The New Theocrats Are Neither Conservative Nor Christian,” by Stephanie Slade

“David French Is Right: Classical Liberalism Is the Best Framework for Protecting Religious Freedom,” by Robby Soave

“YouTube Punishes Steven Crowder for Homophobic Speech, a Confused Approach to an Unsolvable Problem,” by Robby Soave

“To Fight ‘Extremism,’ Journalists Are Praising Online Censorship,” by Nick Gillespie

“White House Seeks Social Media Sob Stories from Conservative Snowflakes,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

“No, the Government Shouldn’t Break Up Facebook,” by Nick Gillespie

“‘Nobody Wants To See a Government Speech Police’: Senate Republicans Threaten To Regulate Facebook and Twitter,” by Billy Binion

“Elizabeth Warren’s Plan to Break Up Big Tech Would Be Bad for America,” by David Harsanyi

“If We Told You Neal Stephenson Invented Bitcoin, Would You Be Surprised?” by Peter Suderman

 

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2Zb16vU
via IFTTT

The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of Harvard law professor Ronald Sullivan, who recently lost his position as faculty dean of Winthrop House after activist students demanded his ouster.

Many of these students were furious that Sullivan—a celebrated expert on criminal justice reform who has represented many controversial clients in the past—joined the defense team of accused rapist Harvey Weinstein. They contended that Sullivan’s actions were “deeply trauma-inducing” for survivors of sexual violence and had the effect of making Winthrop House an unsafe place.

It was a grave mistake for Harvard to capitulate to the students’ demands, write ACLU Legal Director David Cole and ACLU–Massachusetts Executive Director Carol Rose:

The ACLU is committed to fighting sexual assault, in the workplace, the home, on campus, and in the world at large. At the same time, Weinstein, like every person accused of a crime, is presumed innocent in his criminal case unless he pleads or is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Commitment to that principle, and to the system mandated by our Constitution, means we are equally devoted to the principle that every criminal defendant, no matter how vilified, no matter how innocent or guilty, and no matter how poor or rich, deserves a lawyer. If the latter principle is to be respected, it is essential that society not conflate a criminal defense lawyer’s representation with his or her client’s acts….

The student protests at Harvard provided the institution with an opportunity. It could have used the incident as a teachable moment about the importance of criminal defense in our society as well as about the importance of tolerance on a campus of higher learning. It could have demonstrated that there is a fundamental distinction between a lawyer and his clients—and that our system of rights depends on that distinction. Instead, it sacrificed principle in an apparent quest for an easy way out.

What lesson does that teach?

I’ve previously expressed concern that the ACLU may be retreating from some of its previously ironclad commitments to defend free speech and due process when these principles come into conflict with the priorities of the new intersectional left, which is less thrilled about extending legal protections to people they dislike. But the organization’s defense of Sullivan is a powerful counterexample, and I couldn’t be happier that Cole and Rose decided to weigh in this way.

 

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2WA2bRc
via IFTTT

America’s immigration enforcement agency respects the troops, except when it forgets and deports them improperly.

According to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regularly failed to follow procedures when deciding whether to deport former military service members. All veteran cases are supposed to get bumped up to a senior official for review, for example, but the agency didn’t bother to do this in 70 percent of the relevant cases that the GAO reviewed.

ICE’s criminal investigators told the GAO they were “unaware” of the policies. If true, ICE must have developed a bad case of amnesia sometime after 2016, when an agency spokesperson assured me that it “respects the service and sacrifice of those in military service, and is very deliberate in its review of cases involving veterans.”

In 2016, I reported on deported U.S. military veterans living in Tijuana. Although the Trump administration’s restrictions have led to a steep decline, noncitizens have traditionally been able to enlist in the U.S. military, and more than 100,000 lawful permanent residents—commonly called green card holders—have served since 2001.

But they can still be kicked out of the country if they later commit a deportable offense. They then face challenges getting medical care and other benefits they are supposedly guaranteed, the GAO found. (In a morbid bureaucratic twist, deported veterans are still eligible for burial on U.S. soil with full military honors. So basically, they’re barred from reentering the country unless they’re dead.)

According to its own policies, ICE is supposed to consider military service in deportation cases and elevate those cases to senior officials. In 2016, an ICE spokesperson told me that the agency “respects the service and sacrifice of those in military service, and is very deliberate in its review of cases involving veterans.

“Any action taken by ICE that may result in the removal of an alien with military service must be authorized by the senior leadership in a field office, following an evaluation by local counsel,” the spokesperson said. “ICE exercises prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis, when appropriate, for members of the armed forces who have honorably served our country. ICE specifically identifies service in the U.S. military as a positive factor that should be considered when deciding whether or not prosecutorial discretion should be exercised.”

Yet ICE’s investigative branch told the GAO that it was “unaware of the policies” prior to the GAO review, and that its agents “do not distinguish between veterans and nonveterans when conducting administrative or criminal investigations or when deciding whether to [initiate removal proceedings].”

I asked ICE to comment on the GAO report, noting the logical gap between what ICE told me what it told GAO investigators. An agency spokesperson replied that the agency stands by its statement. Rest assured, gentle reader, that ICE still insists it “respects the service and sacrifice of those in military service, and is very deliberate in its review of cases involving veterans.”

The spokesperson also says that ICE’s investigative team is required by law to detain and process for removal those who commit deportable crimes, and in all of the cases the GAO reviewed, “the individuals were placed into removal proceedings because of felony convictions related to drugs; sexual abuse, of which 18 involved minors; firearms, explosives, or explosive material; kidnapping; terrorist threats; and other crimes.”

The spokesperson noted that detainees still receive additional review during immigration removal proceedings, and ICE has pledged to update its training in response to the GAO report.

Yet Hector Barajas—a former Army paratrooper who started a support group for veterans in Tijuana after finding dozens, like himself, who had been deported—tells The Washington Post he only saw ICE exercise its prosecutorial discretion in one single case.

No one knows just how many veterans have been deported. The government doesn’t track such cases, although that’s one of the GAO’s recommendations.

“Deporting veterans represents a failure by our government that could have been prevented if ICE officials had been adhering to agency policies,” House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Mark Takano (D–Calif.) writes in a letter to Acting ICE Director Mark Morgan. “This level of carelessness and disregard for official procedures is negligent and unacceptable.”

Another Army and National Guard veteran I interviewed, Clayton Gordon, was arrested by ICE agents in 2013, three years after he successfully completed probation for cocaine possession. ICE detained Gordon for five months without a bail hearing, a practice a federal appeals court declared unconstitutional. Gordon then fought a five-year legal battle before a judge finally ruled last December that he could stay in the U.S.

“I still feel proud,” Gordon told me in 2016, while his removal case was still pending. “I still have a flag in my yard. I don’t care. It’s a stupid law. It’s just a thing that happens. In 1996 this wasn’t happening. Wrong place, wrong time, I guess, but regardless I still love America. If they asked me [to enlist] again, I’d go again.”

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2F1wyVR
via IFTTT

Today the Supreme Court declined an opportunity to examine whether it’s still acceptable to hold enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay at a time when Washington’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq no longer resemble anything the U.S. was doing in the direct wake of 9/11.

Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, a Yemeni citizen, has been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay since January 2002, when he was captured in Pakistan fleeing Afghanistan. He was initially accused of being a veteran terrorist combatant and a former Osama bin Laden bodyguard. Much later, in 2015, officials concluded he was most likely not a former bodyguard; while he was affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it’s unclear whether he was engaged in any sort of combat against the United States. He’s one of 40 prisoners still detained there.

He’s been sitting in Guantanamo Bay for 17 years, but the U.S. government has not charged him with any crimes. It doesn’t appear to intend to charge him with anything, but it also refuses to release him, because the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to wage war in Afghanistan and against the Taliban and al Qaeda remains in force.

In 2004’s Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the AUMF authorized such detentions with an understanding that this authorization ended at the conclusion of the war. But even in 2004, the majority was cognizant of the possibility that this amorphous “war on terror” was likely to change over time. In the ruling, written by then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, it notes: “If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date.”

The nature of our military actions have most certainly changed 15 years later. Lawyers representing al-Alwi petitioned the Supreme Court, noting that open hostilities in Afghanistan have ended even though the AUMF remains in force. Right now, America’s military interventions in Afghanistan are against tribal forces and terrorist groups that bear no resemblance to those al-Alwi once served. The petition to the Supreme Court raised three questions: whether the government’s authority to detain al-Alwi has “unraveled” given the phrasing in the initial Hamdi decision; whether the authority to detain al-Alwi has expired because that particular conflict in Afghanistan has ended (regardless of whether the AUMF is still in effect); and whether the AUMF could authorize the continued indefinite detention of an individual who was not shown to have been “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” prior to his capture. President Donald Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court to reject the appeal.

Today the justices announced they wouldn’t consider the case (with Justice Brett Kavanaugh taking no part in the considerations or the decision). The Supreme Court justices often don’t explain or comment on cases they decline. But Justice Stephen Breyer, who ruled with the majority in Hamdi, released a statement that he would have granted certification to review the case. He thinks it’s time, more than a decade later, to confront the questions Hamdi left unanswered:

The Government represents that such hostilities are ongoing, but does not state that any end is in sight….As a consequence, al-Alwi faces the real prospect that he will spend the rest of his life in detention based on his status as an enemy combatant a generation ago, even though today’s conflict may differ substantially from the one Congress anticipated when it passed the AUMF, as well as those “conflicts that informed the development of the law of war.” Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 521 (plurality opinion).

Read Breyer’s full statement at the end of today’s Supreme Court orders here.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2IvsI8h
via IFTTT

A cancer patient from Montgomery, Illinois, has been sentenced to four years in prison for ordering a 42-pound package of chocolate marijuana edibles to self-medicate. The day after he pleaded guilty, the state legalized recreational marijuana.

Thomas J. Franzen ordered 430 marijuana-infused chocolate bars from a California dispensary in 2014 in order to abate some of his symptoms, such as nausea. He pleaded guilty on May 30 to possession of more than 5,000 grams of cannabis, which carries a prison term of four to 14 years.

Prosecutors dropped the more serious charge of trafficking over 5,000 grams of cannabis, which could have put Franzen behind bars for up to 60 years.

David Camic, Franzen’s attorney, praised the judge who presided over the case. “The judge was cognizant of his health and wanted to give him a break, but ultimately 40 pounds of cannabis is a large amount,” he tells the Chicago Tribune.

But it is difficult to view this outcome as either compassionate or just, considering that Franzen caused no obvious harm to another human being. He has a debilitating disease that very well might kill him—his cancer is stage 4—and he’s going to prison for ordering too much medicine. Four years is better than 60, but the appropriate amount of prison time for this is none.

Franzen will return to court on June 14, at which time Judge Clint Hull will review medical test results to determine when Franzen should begin his sentence. “He’s going through necessary medical treatment and hopefully he’s in a period of remission,” Camic tells the Tribune. “The judge was very kind to delay the sentencing because he will not receive the same level of care in prison that he’s receiving now.”

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/31gko4K
via IFTTT

Philadelphia is finally cracking down on Public Enemy Number One: bay windows.

City Councilman Kenyatta Johnson has introduced an ordinance that would ban these protruding windows in the neighborhoods of Point Breeze and Grays Ferry. Balconies would be verboten too. His aim, he says, is to prevent undue clashing with the traditional brownstone homes that populate the area.

“I call them pop-out windows,” he told local radio station WHYY last week. “That’s where we have these monstrosity developments with windows with aluminum siding that are green or orange or blue, and they don’t fit on these blocks that are all red-brick rowhouses.”

For some, the bay windows that have been popping up on new townhomes and condominiums throughout the city are just the most outward sign of the city’s rapid gentrification.

“They are an icon of that change, and maybe for a lot of people, they are an icon of unwelcome change,” Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia tells the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Johnson’s bill passed unanimously out of committee last Wednesday, and the full city council may vote on it this week. It is expected to pass easily.

The bill has nevertheless courted opposition. The city’s Streets Department has said the ordinance would be essentially unenforceable, as well as a strain on limited city resources.

The Inquirer‘s editorial board has also opposed the measure, deriding the idea that gentrification could be stalled by selectively targeting a few of its most transparent symbols. The paper calls this the “bay windows theory”—a play on the “broken windows theory” of policing.

That editorial also notes that this kind of microregulation of buildings’ outward appearance could be used to block the development of affordable housing that doesn’t perfectly match a surrounding neighborhood’s aesthetic.

There’s a more direct way trying to preserve Philadelphia’s stock of brownstone rowhomes could lead to greater gentrification and affordability problems: Historic preservation is expensive, since historic buildings require wealthier owners that have the money to prevent them from falling apart.

This is a point made by free market urbanist Alain Bertaud on a recent episode of the podcast Econtalk.

“You cannot maintain a brownstone unless you have a lot of money. And it’s the same thing with any historical building,” said Bertaud. “It will have to go to rich people. If not they will deteriorate very, very quickly.”

Compared to other large cities, Philadelphia remains relatively affordable—in part, perhaps, because it has been more welcoming of development.

Yet the more and more minute regulations the city passes governing how home and apartments have to look, the more chances NIMBYs will have to stop needed new development it its tracks. Johnson’s bill is relatively limited, but it could represent a dangerous slippery slope.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2WnYYPy
via IFTTT

Last month, I crossed the border between Arizona and Utah with a cargo of contraband in my possession. The goods—hard to legally come by behind the Zion Curtain even after recent reforms—were carefully concealed amidst other cargo, to avoid the prying eyes of Beehive State enforcers. Most importantly, my illicit cargo paired well with meat and fish and could be enjoyed in the time, place, and quantity of my choosing.

That’s right. I smuggled liquor and wine on my hiking vacation to Bryce and Zion National Parks.

Utah isn’t the only place where it’s a joy to ignore stupid restrictions on alcohol consumption. But the state remains cluelessly proud of such rules, which are painfully tight even after a liberalizing law in 2017 made it legal for people to actually watch their drinks being mixed. When that’s viewed as a victory, you know the place has a way to go.

With few exceptions, “it is clear you may not bring alcoholic beverages into Utah for any purpose whether it is for personal consumption, to serve at a private social function, or to give or sell to others,” the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) boasts on its website.

Should you be fool enough to abide by such a ban, you’ll have to do a little planning to satisfy your thirst—unless you’re OK with the 3.2 beer available in convenience stores. The state has all of 44 full-service liquor stores scattered about, as well as “agencies” with more limited offerings. There is also “a world class wine selection at three specialty wine stores,” as the DABC puts it, all in Salt Lake City.

No liquor stores are near Bryce Canyon National Park—the nearest is in Panguitch, which is half-hour drive each way. The Ruby’s Inn General Store does have 3.2 beer available at the sort of prices you’d expect at the only shop around. You can also order drinks with your dinner at the lodge in the park and at restaurants outside the park gates and in nearby towns.

Springdale, outside the main gates of Zion National Park, is a larger community that offers greater choice than you find at Bryce. There’s an actual liquor store there—Switchback Trading Company—that was almost a quarter the size of the booze section in any of the grocery stores in my town. There are plenty of restaurants with full bars, too.

But, if you’ve had a full day on the trail, forget about a generous pour. Utah law allows for “no more than 1.5 ounces of primary liquor in a mixed drink,” which can be blended with other ingredients “not to exceed a total of 2.5 ounces of spirituous liquor.” Your choice of red, white, or rosé can’t exceed five ounces per glass.

Five ounces of wine? In Arizona, we call that a sip. My server at a Phoenix eatery last night offered me a choice of six or nine ounces of pinot grigio.

Utah’s restrictive rules and limited opportunities for relaxation with a beverage require a period of quiet contemplation. Heavy thinking of that sort is best done over a generous pour of zinfandel brought into the state courtesy of a large and heavy cooler.

To be fair, Utah has improved its liquor laws. Until 2009, would-be imbibers had to purchase memberships in private clubs before being allowed to sit down and order drinks. I doubt anybody mourns the disappearance of that law.

And the state’s lawmakers are hardly isolated in their silliness and presumption.

I like wine clubs, for instance, but when I tried to share the joy with my mother, I discovered that Maryland is among the many states that let a clique of local distributors dictate the rules. That means that “you must make arrangements to ship the wine to you through a Maryland wholesaler, using a Direct Wine Sellers Permit,” according to the state Comptroller’s office. Effectively, wine clubs operating in Maryland must be licensed as wine manufacturers—which limits the options, as you might expect.

I was able to find a club that would do the job. But I also discovered that lots of vineyards and wine shops around the country, fed up with restrictive shipping rules, have cut deals with shipping storefronts that will carefully package the goods and label them as something innocuous. If you look around in restrictive states like Maryland, it’s impressive how many people receive regular shipments of books and antiques from wine country.

Theoretically, Maryland even restricts residents returning from vacation to transporting one gallon of the good stuff per trip—to be reported to the state. “One quart per trip is tax exempt,” says the Comptroller’s office. “The remaining three quarts is taxed in Maryland.”

Uh huh. Remember to wrap those books and antiques carefully.

It’s not that government officials are unaware that their subjects scoff at ridiculous rules—they have such violations rubbed in their faces all the time. But being who they are, lawmakers see the fault not in their laws but in the insufficiently docile public.

When sky-high-taxes and an entrenched liquor-distribution cartel made it very attractive to smuggle booze from cheaper Indiana to Illinois, Illinois responded by making it a felony to import more than 45 liters without a license.

That doesn’t appear to have deterred the cross-border trade, to judge by news reports that portray a lively business that continues despite the occasional arrest. In January 2018 alone, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission asked 837 businesses to please stop illegally shipping booze to Illinois customers. That’s a good sign that the benefits of breaking the law vastly outweigh the small risk of getting caught.

Honestly, how many people can the authorities arrest when their rules are sufficiently restrictive that many people see ignoring them as just good sense? That’s true in all cases, of course, but it applies in particular to something as widely enjoyed as alcoholic beverages. On my many trips to Utah, cases of beer and bottles of wine and liquor have been constant companions. I’ve shared my stash with people I meet, who happily reciprocated with their own supplies.

So, keep the party going, no matter what officious party-poopers might say. Maybe they’ll eventually get the message that their rules are unwelcome and unenforceable. Or maybe you’ll just get to enjoy an afternoon drink without a lot of hassle. Just don’t forget the corkscrew.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2KFUaTo
via IFTTT

You can get five years in federal prison for selling llama poop, according to Title Seven of the United States Code, Section8313(a)(1)(B).

Title 21, Part 139 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits the sale of improperly shaped spaghetti noodles.

The Swine Health Protection Act forbids feeding a pig garbage that hasn’t been cooked by a garbage cooker with a garbage-cooking permit.

Criminal defense attorney Mike Chase, the man behind the popular @CrimeADay Twitter feed, has a new book titled How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender. It chronicles government power at its most arbitrary and absurd.

Reason‘s Todd Krainin sat down with Chase to learn the roots of his obsession with laws against improperly shaped cheese, whistling on a CB radio, and making unreasonable gestures to a passing horse.

Music: “Law and Order,” by Lloyd Rodgers under a Public Domain Mark 1.0 License.

Produced, written, and hosted by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Mark McDaniel.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2WwuHmB
via IFTTT