Protecting the Scotch Branding

There are a myriad of laws on the books; federal laws, state laws, local ordinances. There are so many laws that sometimes I wonder that we aren’t all incarcerated or paying fines for some violation or other everyday.

I believe that we do no need a specific law where a broader law will suffice. We do not need a law against texting while driving, where the broader inattentive driving law would suffice. We do not need a specific child restraint law, where the broader child endangerment law would suffice.

I believe that we do not need laws tailored to corporate interests. As an example, we may need a regulation that says “Scotch” must come from Scotland, a law like 27 USC S205 & 27 CFR S5.22(k)(4) that makes it a federal crime to use “Scotch” for liquor not wholly produced in Scotland seems overkill, even more so when the law also includes the words “Scots” “Highland” “Highlands” and “other similar words commonly associated with Scotland.

I believe that we should be careful in how we apply morality to legislation. Laws against homosexual behavior, transgender dressing and gay marriage are examples of laws based on moral principles where the behavior being legislated did no harm. There are many examples of the religious or moral beliefs of one group of people coming into conflict with the behaviors of other groups of people. Behaviors as everyday as eating meat, drinking sugary beverages and eating fatty foods are prime examples. While consumer information and the protection of minors are important caveats, on the whole I believe that if no one else is being harmed, informed adults have the right to choose to behave as they wish. We don’t need laws to modify the behavior of informed and consenting adults.