This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should governments be allowed to criminalize victimless acts?
If a certain act causes no harm to others (be it social, economic, political, etc) should it be considered a crime? Modern governments have decided that certain acts (i.e. drug use, pornography, gambling, prostitution) are illegal, despite the fact that they are victimless crimes.
I believe the government has no right to criminalize conduct consensually agreed to between adults that cause no direct harm to others. I believe in people taking responsibility for their own lives and oppose paternalistic government. As a result, I support the immediate decriminalization of marijuana, prostitution, pornography, gambling and other victimless crimes.
I'd love to hear an argument that could persuade me to change my point of view.
Tim blackburn 30+
you can not assume everyone smoking weed gets there stuff from drug gangs
you can not prove someone drinking will need a new liver, or smoker a new lung.
im tired of people becoming victims to ASSumptions.
Kent Spencer 10+
Tim blackburn 30+
Kent Spencer 10+
Tim blackburn 30+
Mr. Anony mouse
Tim blackburn 30+
and we have the time and resources for cops to do swat raids on pot farms everyday, so dont give me that
Mr. Anony mouse
Tim blackburn 30+
i think Marijuana should be fully legal.
i think chemically less harmful drugs making up most psychedelics should be decriminalized and able to be obtained in specificly chosen places. i like the idea of applying for a card to obtain said drugs, taking a simple psych test and backround check would sound fair
for harder drugs, only in there purest forms, meth, cocain, heroin, i think should be deciminalized but those who manufacture it should be jailed, and through several therapy sessions determin if the person is using the drug responisibly/ or needing the drug for an addiction, from there offering the person help if wanted.
Mark Meyer 10+
Your analysis of drug use is probably correct and the costs of incarcerating casual users far outweigh the benefit, but I'm not as certain about drunk driving. The cost of ticketing someone or taking away their license is quite small compared to the real risk to people and property driving drunk poses.
This is difficult, admittedly, because we as a species seem to be very bad at statistics and evaluating risk.
Tim blackburn 30+
and i am aware this would cost money, when portugal did there sweeping decriminalization of drugs they really diddnt save a lot of money becuase all those funds went to clinics and free help for addicts.
Mr. Anony mouse
Well it may take you one minute to solve - it may be nice to live in ideal world but you don't and can't, how long will it take for bureaucrats to solve it?
I argue either same policy and studies should get implemented for other banned drugs as well, or legal drugs like alcohol/tobacco/caffeine/,... should get banned entirely too.
I also argue tobacco and alcohol users should pay equal percentage, for which inclinement towards condition related to their use increases, to their treatment too - if problem is related to their use.
I don't see how those two options are consistent unless you can get still put in jail for chosing the 1st option [you hadn't clarified that] (which would limit you the use of substance) or you don't get to be put in jail at all @ 2nd option.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
thinking about it, we don't even need that latter option. who would choose that? you know, we only want to put the other fella in jail.
Mr. Anony mouse
Nevermind about the inconsistency issue about those two things you mentioned.
Mr. Anony mouse
I was also replying to "Krisztián Pintér" 's comment above.
Mr. Anony mouse
It is not completely opposite to my statement, I had also included a tobacco, while you had not. Smoking marijuana is quite on par with smoking nicotine, however there were some researches which might suggest THC has inhibitory effect on tumor growth which is caused by killing old cells faster, but there was only one research claiming that IIRC.
Some facts about the smoke: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml
However you mustn't forget that nicotine is also often mixed with marijuana and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death
Nicotine use is more deadly than obesity. Alcohol is also not so far behind. It is not possible to correctly asses impact of marijuana due to limited sample and legal status, but it would be almost safe to presume it's at least somewhere in range of obesity. Generally drug use is more harmful to society than Obesity, TV shows, and trafic collisions combined.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
obesity is several magnitudes more harmful than even hard drug use. number of death, amount of suffering, and the money spent, whatever you look at, obesity wins convincingly.
Tim blackburn 30+
(2007 - annual causes of death by cause)
Cardiovascular diseases 806,156
Malignant neoplasms 562,875
Motor Vehicle Crashes 43,945
Drug induced1 38,371
Septicemia (infections) 34,828
Suicide 34,598
by Firearms 31,224
Accidental poisoning 29,846
Alcohol induced 23,199
Homicide 18,361
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 11,295
Viral hepatitis 7,407
Cannabis (Marijuana) 0
Mr. Anony mouse
"The study found that up to 400,000 deaths each year in the EU are directly linked to excess weight."
@ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-171497/Britains-obesity-death-rate.html
"You can add them up. if you care"
@ http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm
"Wolframalpha states 56059/year"
@ http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=motor+vehicles+crashes+deaths+europe
"Despite considerable progress, the number of smokers in the EU is still high – around one third of the population – and the associated health problems include some 650 000 smoking-related deaths each year."
@ http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/my_lifestyle/tobacco/index_en.htm
"Harmful alcohol consumption is estimated to be responsible
for approximately 195 000 deaths a year in
the EU2 due to e.g. accidents, liver disease, cancers
etc."
@ http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/alcohol_factsheet_en.pdf
Scroll all the way down and check numbers.
So what have we got?
845000 Alcohol and tobacco related deaths versus 456059 obesity and traffic colisions combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_worldwide
Also check this out (I'm not sure why you haven't do so yet as I gave you link above): It is worldwide statistics for 2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_worldwide
So we've got:
Smoking tobacco 5.0M
Alcohol 1.9M
Overweight and obesity 2.5M
Physical inactivity 2.0M
Traffic collisions 1.2M (@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions)
So we've got 6.9 milion for alcohol and tobacco and 5.7 milion for overweigth and obesity (which are in large proportion "first world" problems - if you can call is souch), physical inactivity and traffic collisions.
I really don't think I have to interpret that to you.
Tim blackburn 30+
Mr. Anony mouse
There is also problem as I mentioned it above, theoretically if one smokes marijuana alone and dies from lung cancer death, would not the one who preforms autopsy automatically consider him to be a smoker and would not care to preform drug tests (he would presume tobacco) related death. Especially because of marijuana's illegal status it would be hard to know what drug abuse (in form of smoking) was the user preforming - as marijuana users don't vocally boast it to everyone they know or see - numbers would be small but I certainly don't believe overall total (including chronical users) is 0. The figure that was given above was of acute THC overdose. Having lethal dose of roughly 1000mg/kg of body weigth, which is nearly impossible if smoking or eating plant parts are employed. By the way tobacco can be also chewed or smoked in "hookas".
And hard drug use is statistically not souch a major contributor to overall deaths.
Also those studies are not wrong, you just obviously don't know how to interpret the results.
Tim blackburn 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the solution is this simple: measure the chance of lung cancer among marijuana smokers, and a control group. calculate how much more money is needed to cure a marijuana smoker, in percentage. let them choose from two options:
1. smoke weed, and have a co-pay for lung cancer treatment, exactly the same percent
2. don't smoke weed. in this case, police still can put you in jail.
objections:
1. we don't know that percentage. answer: if so, on what grounds you say there is an increase? how dare you propose policies if you don't have numbers?
2. we can't catch those, who say they won't, but do anyway. answer: just as today. only a small fraction of stoners get caught. if this is acceptable, my proposal is also acceptable.
Mr. Anony mouse
Yes, I believe governments should be able to do that, even in your case where it's not completely victimless crime. Laws are passed in regards to majority of population, not a minority like you who would be "responsible users". If you would have the right to use it, many people would start arguing about unjustice wanting to do the same, even tho hey might be more prone to abuse. I'm sure overall cost-benifit is in society's favour. Any crime that influences society in any way is not victimless - it could form a cascade effect. Courts merely decide whether you are guilty of controlled substance related issue or not.
I agree souch liberal politics would be more consistent (alcohol, tobacco,pharmaceuticals are still legal ?!?) and appropriate, but it is not yet implemented in reality due to certain predjudices. So I'm all for souch liberal politics considering controlled substances, but I don't think they will get implemented anytime soon/ever. Similar case as nuclear power - irrational fear.
So let's not get too offtopic I argue that currently, propositions mentioned above in the starting post are not completely victimless - society has to take the burden for them. And unless mechanism of society changes they will stay so.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Mr. Anony mouse
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Tim blackburn 30+
Mr. Anony mouse
Well you still have a choice, you can always denounce living in society if you would like (and go back to living with nature). Where exactly do personal liberties mention you have legal right to use illegal substances? You have the right to posses home, you have the right to possess money, you have the right to posess seeds however you do not have the right to plant it's seeds as this would be classified as "manifacture of illegal/controlled substance" which is illegal in Hungary (last time I checked). Rolling it out and smoking is illegal too. Sure you can do it, but you are legally responsible for souch action. It is entirely you problem if you get caught doing it, even if you are ignorant of the law. Seeing Hungarian law regarding souch substances, I believe law is insufficiently structured considering impacts, dangers and classification of substances.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Mr. Anony mouse
Krisztián Pintér 200+
the impact on the central budget is a real issue, which can be nicely handled by allowing opt out from government services. i just register myself as a marijuana user, and the government does not have to pay my marijuana related medical costs. clean and simple. it is not enough reason to ban anything.
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 200+
will the time come that we will prohibit tv shows, because they take away time from learning and doing meaningful things?
Mr. Anony mouse
No I'm saying we should limit damage occouring due to drug use by limiting extent of drug use or even prescribe medicinal grade drugs for addicts. You have rights, but you chose to function in context of society, thus you are required to follow it's laws - that's cost of society providing you with almost everything. Laws are implemented only to limit because of people who are susceptible/succumb to those habits. You do not have a legal right to smoke a joint at the moment. Personal liberties do not mention you having a right to smoke joint, however there's possible exception - medical condition or religion, but I don't think you have any of those two. However you can smoke joint outside of the law (like I do). I'm not saying law is consistent and perfect, far from it...
Hopefully time will come when people will stop doing souch insignificant things as watching TV shows, sports and will stop seeking or will find more productive ways of amusement. But that's just my personal opinion and probably a bit utopic.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
personal liberties exactly mention my right to smoke a joint. suppose i have a home. i have money, so i buy some seeds. i plant it in a little pot, i water it, etc. then i dry it out, roll it in a paper, and smoke. all along this path, i used my own stuff, and limited nobody in any way using their stuff. i hurt nobody. any theories of personal liberty exactly say that this is something i can do, and nobody can interfere with it.
Mr. Anony mouse
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Mr. Anony mouse
True victimless would imply that there are no victims. But let's take a look at traffic speed regulations they are pretty equivalent to above mentioned possibilities: speeding would be a victimless crime(unless you hit someone or cause an accident), or driving under influence of alcohol (same story). But reason for which those regulations exist is to minimise potential impact on society - unrelated bystanders that could get involved in accidents, even tho they might not neccessarily get involved, but implanting the regulations lowers the probability of souch occourences. Can you name me a completely victimless crime(don't mix it with violation)? Better definition in my opinion would be classification of crimes by their overall impact on society, again fuzzy logic helps a lot in comparison to binary.
So there is a bloody good reason for some laws to get implemented. Otherwise I'm all for lawless society, if people would be capable of sustaining that, which they are not.
Tim Barnden
Mr Pintér- I'm not sure I agree that 'anarchism means a leftist movement which is part of the "communism" branch'. To me you might as well say that atheism is a part of the methodist branch of christianity. Anarchy means no government so how can it be part of a political power system?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i personally think that this is bollocks, and my property can not go public domain just because i stop using it personally. but try to tell this to noam chomsky, or anyone on reddit's anarchism subgroup.
clarification: theoretical, pure communism is anti-government too.
ps: actually i'm glad to see that not everyone agrees with that meaning of the word anarchism. maybe there is hope. are you from the US?
Tim Barnden
I guess the common use of the word anarchy for chaos is, unfortunately, a realistic portrayal of what would occur in an anarchic society. Much as I would love to believe that people are sensible enough to act decently towards one another (you can always depend on the kindness of strangers...) without laws to force their actions, in my experience there are some proper numpties in the world. Too many for any non governmental system to work on any large scale. Maybe if society could be divided into autonomous factions of like minded individuals it could, but that's sounding a bit 'Mad Max'.
Anyway this is all feeling a bit pedantic and off topic.
Fábio Nunes
I don't get this comment. First of all you just say that decriminalization is a solution for our overcrowded prisons after I've said it isn't. By not presenting any valid argument, you're not contributing to the discussion.
Secondly, I don't see how it can be disgusting for me to think that it is ok to jail drug users. I can't understand your comment. You talk like if I am a fool and I'm saying something that is just wrong. I don't see my position as disgusting when I've the support of the majority of countries (who penalize drug users)
Tim blackburn 30+
its like jailing people for burning bibles, you might not agree, but burning that bible did not directly hurt anyone. but for that bible burner to do time with robbers, gangsters, violent offenders in a enviroment more hostile than the inside of a wasp hive? tragedy.
Fábio Nunes
Tim blackburn 30+
do you feel safer? are the drugs gone? has addiction droped? has anything changed in the last 50 years other than more bloodshed?
Tim blackburn 30+
when its been proven they will do it anyways.
but heres the best part-
how hard is it to find pure drugs these days? damn hard, be it heroin, coke, mdma, meth, ect ect. why?
becuase we cant legaly cut these drugs ourselves.
do you know what they cut that stuff with sometimes? animal de-wormers? fever inducers? other more harmful drugs?
ecstacy and coke deaths would dramaticaly drop if the drugs they had were pure in the first place.
SO give me your blah blah blah the cost society but until your ready to stop risking young peoples lives for assumed risk and consequences and spewing lies about drug use and effects then get back to me.
Jordan Stella
Tim blackburn 30+
Fábio Nunes
Jason Hinchliffe
Tim blackburn 30+
Fábio Nunes
Fábio Nunes
Tim blackburn 30+
thats what i meant.
Jason Hinchliffe
Besides, marijuana (or any plannt based drug) grown in a suboptimal climate will not be more or less "safe". They will simply experience a demise in overall quality such as poor taste and lower potency. Neither is a threat to health.
Fábio Nunes
Fábio Nunes
Thirdly, I don’t think “drug money would go to legal business” if it drug use were to be legalized. In the Netherlands, drug use is legal, however, all the drugs come from other countries. Countless carriers are caught in Europe’s peripheral countries that had Netherlands has a destiny. Furthermore, as a good wine, drug quality depends on which site drug plants were grown. The best, I think, probably come from Afghanistan, so, by buying drugs that come from Afghanistan you would be funding the Taliban’s.
Finally, consider the costs to a country’ heath care programs if drugs were to be legalized. They would grow immensely, making it impossible to have a more socialist heath care program. However, if you think through this prism you would also have to agree that tobacco and alcohol should be prohibited.
Tim blackburn 30+
plus, there are bars everywhere!
PLUS drugs have been used by man since the start.
sorry my friend.
Jordan Stella
I believe you are wrong in saying that it would over-flow our already crowded prison system. Think of how many people are in jail because of the sale of drugs. Because of prostitution. Because of gambling. Because of so many victimless crimes. These people would be taken out of the prison, and instead, the individuals inside the prisons would be there for ACTUALLY committing a crime.
I also disagree with your argument that everyone would misuse their right to use drugs. I believe by legalizing the drugs you are forcing people to be more conscientious of their actions and thus are moving farther from anarchy, not closer to it as you suggest.
If you are worried about where the drugs come from, I must remind you that you are using the same argument that you used in the beginning. By saying that buying drugs from Afghanistan one would be funding the Taliban is fallacious at best. The Taliban is a multinational terrorist organization, and I do not doubt that they have drug trade involved with their group; however, that is not the only way they are funded. On the same token, you should condemn the U.S. government, since recent studies and inquiries into government funding in Afghanistan show that a large percentage of U.S. money overseas is being lost, and some of it being funneled to the Taliban through indirect means.
I completely and utterly despise any notion of socialistic medicine. The government has absolutely no right to spend tax dollars in that way, and should not ever attempt to interfere with individual life in such a way.
Small government is the only way to go.
Fábio Nunes
I think that a country cannot call itself the "greatest country in the world", as President Obama said a few days ago, and have people dieing due not to the lack of resources, but to the lack of character of some people who would rather spend money in other things than in assuring that everybody has an equal opportunity. Some decades ago, M. L. King fought for equal opportunities between black and white people, and know we think that we had to be monsters: how could we not respect people just like us?
I believe that, a few years ago, you'll look back and be ashamed of the time where people had to die due the greedy health insurance agencies, lobbies and self-centered citizens who only cared about them.
Moving on the the drug theme, first of all, I don't see your point when you say that I should also condemn the U.S. government, when we were talking about the effects of drug use in Afghanistan. Just because the U.S. government is failing, that doesn't excuse, whatsoever, consumers.
Furthermore, I must insist and say that consumers' choices have an impact in other countries and in drug cartels (and FYY, one of the Taliban's principal source of money was drug plantation).
You countless appeals by the Greenpeace to consumers to abstain from buying certain products (some hair lotions, for example, cause deforestation of rain-forests) and consumers broadly support these appeals. Consumers recognize their choices have an impact. Therefore, drug users are responsible, if they buy products from these countries, for these wars.
Jordan Stella
As it seems that you have much more knowledge on the subject of the Taliban, I will leave that issue and take you at your word.
Tim blackburn 30+
consumers might not help, but theres more to it than that.
Fábio Nunes
This conversation has showed me that a debate is needed to clarify these subjects, however, this argument of over-crowded prisoner system cannot be used. Crimes need to be penalized. It doesn't matter if there's space for criminals or not. Therefore, the debate need to be held around the subject of what is a crime and not if there is space for criminals.
"believe by legalizing the drugs you are forcing people to be more conscientious of their actions" - probably. I guess in the U.S. when people reach 21, the legal age for drinking, they are more conscientious than they were when they were 18... However, I can't figure out if it's due to the effect of the "legalization" of drinking or it's due to the growth in the maturity levels of the teenagers.
However, people can become more conscientious of their actions, but that doesn't solve any of the other issues I raised.
Tim blackburn 30+
Jordan Stella
Tim blackburn 30+
Jordan Stella
Tim blackburn 30+
Jordan Stella
Corvida Raven 100+
Tim blackburn 30+
Michael M 30+
Tim Barnden
It is interesting that you believe legalizing drugs would 'be moving farther from anarchy'.
To my mind the word anarchy is synonymous with 'libertarianism'.
;-)
Tim blackburn 30+
Tim blackburn 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Fábio Nunes
Ultimately it's the consumers fault. Consumers are responsible for their actions. They can choose to buy recycled paper, if they are worried about deforestation - this means, consumers have a notion of the consequences of their purchases.
And most people are truly worried about the deforestation and drug cartels' conflicts. Some of them even protest against it. However, something I can't understand is why people tend to forget their responsibilities when it comes to getting high (taking drugs).
They are truly concerned about these deaths, as anyone is, however they tend to forget that their purchase of these products funds those wars.
If they are unable to live up to their responsibilities, then it's up to the government to do the most responsible thing.
My reply concerning the comments that said that the legalization of drugs would solve all problems.
Jordan Sata said that: “if an individual chooses to use drugs, he should be allowed to do so; the moment he resorts to crime to fulfill his addiction, he should be punished”
Let me said just this: it’s an incredibly irresponsible position.
First of all, by legalizing drugs (and I will not compare them to alcohol or tobacco, because drugs in the literal meaning are way more dangerous, for example, drugs that enable rapping) and expecting people to behave, it’s the same thing as giving a depressive person a gun. Conflicts are expected and therefore, as you said people would be punished, filling up the already over-flooded prisoner system, and this contrasts one of your so called advantages of legalizing drugs – remember it was said that the legalization of drugs would lead to a better prisoner system.
Secondly, you can call me close minded, but I wouldn’t like to live in a society where everybody (continues)
Michael M 30+
Government is not to protect individuals, but to protect society.
If you want this no one tells me what to do world, go and live in a treehouse somewhere...you are connected Jordan, by society, history, economics and yes, your behavior to other people. You are responsible. Government is responsible for well being of all of us.
Tim blackburn 30+
FURTHER you cannot claim ALL drug users get there product from mexico, as generally the product is terrible. the majority of the drug users i see are using product from canada, south east asia, and europe.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Fábio Nunes
Jordan Stella
The base of this argument is this: what is the responsibility of a government? People have been debating this since the birth of government. I believe that a government exists to protect the rights of the people and as such should not interfere in victimless crimes, nor should they interfere when no rights are being violated.
I can see where your position comes from, but I just can't agree with that. The American government is responsible for the well-being of its own citizens, and should not concern itself with foreign interests when legislating laws that have to deal with internal issues.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Fábio Nunes
Jordan Stella
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Fábio Nunes
Furthermore, obviously depressed people can get knives as can drug users (who are not insane), however, there's a difference. Depressed people are medicated and if they represent a danger to anyone or to themselves they are admitted into an hospital. Drug users are not medicated. While they are drugged, they can do unimaginable things, however, if drug use is to be legalized, there wont be enough police forces to monitor them and make sure they don't endanger anyone or themselves.
Fábio Nunes
And what does it mean to be adult? to be over 18? 21? I don't think so. One should be considered an adult if he meets the requirements to be an adult, this is, a certain level of certain responsibility, etc. This can be determined by a CATscan, according to a well renowned psychologist, Dr. Aires
Eun A Jo 10+
It all depends on how you define the role of a government. Some may argue that the government is responsible for protecting each individual from engaging in potentially dangerous activities to which they could get easily addicted. But some, like you, believe that "one is not obligated to be his brother's keeper." So this discussion, really, is a matter of belief. And the majority, or the more powerful, evidently believes in the former.
Jordan Stella
Regardless of whether these acts are "pretty sights", the government has no right to criminalize a victimless act. It is the choice of the doer to commit such actions, and he should not be subject to government interference.
Need I remind everyone in this debate of a little experiment the U.S. tried called Prohibition. Alcohol use, theft, crime, all soared. Not to mention organized crime was formed in most major U.S. cities thanks to Prohibition. I ask you this, does criminalizing these victimless acts make it better? In my opinion, it does not.
Eun A Jo 10+
Also, you continue to refer to marijuana use, but how about the other hard drugs? Do you think they should be legalized as well?
I only said that the reason that the government has criminalized these acts must be simply because they are against what an idealistic society requires. Besides, whether out of ignorance or indifference, the majority supports the prohibition of these acts. Unless you can prove that decriminalizing these acts will improve the situation and decrease the number of prostitutes, drug addicts and other related "crimes," on a large basis, I do not think people would be willing to risk the chance of potentially establishing a culture of increasing drug-dependence and acts of sexual degradation.
Jordan Stella
I'll concede to your last point. Since the only way to prove that decriminalizing these acts would lower the rate of drug-dependence and other problems, the world may never know.
Eun A Jo 10+
It would be interesting to find out though - whether decriminalizing would improve the situation or not.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Eun A Jo 10+
Well, that is what I meant by the "majority," or the more powerful, deciding these acts to be unacceptable. Unless you've got evidence that decriminalizing works, the change will remain hardly likely to happen.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
By the way, let me say that I myself don't drink, smoke or do drugs so I don't gain anything from it personally.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Tim blackburn 30+
Eun A Jo 10+
Jason Hinchliffe
Michael M 30+
Tim blackburn 30+
RP2012
Jordan Stella
Tim blackburn 30+
the sad part is, beyond ignorance and politics, there is no reason. becuase the science says otherwise. unfourtanetly we live in a world where people think it is totaly reasonable to do time for such offences. and until they get a right of theres striped away and hauled off to jail for it, they wont see its just humans hurting humans for no reason. :(
Fábio Nunes
Drug use might be a victimless act, but we can't forget that drug users in America, for example, empower drug cartels in Mexico who slaughter thousands of people every year. And this story repeats itself with all the other examples you gave. The usage of those things can be victimless acts, but nonetheless represent victims and a death toll somewhere else in the world. If people are responsible to buy and use these products, than they are responsible for the clear consequences that underline their actions.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Debra Smith 200+
However, I struggle with the concept of 'victimless' crime. As a guy gambles away his house, I think we could count his homeless kids as victims and if there is a social net- the whole of society pays for his inability to support his kids.
With pornography there is good evidence of a negative spiral of thrill seeking that can lead to violence against women.
If the drug user becomes addicted to drugs, they often resort to crime to support a habit and in societies with social networks, we bear the cost of helping them regain their lives when their addictions erode their health.
Jordan Stella
If a man is gambling away his house, then it is his own responsibility to recognize that he has a problem and fix it. If he has a family, then it is not their responsibility to stop him, but it would be in their best interest to attempt to help him with his problem.
Your claim that pornography leads to violence against women is actually completely outdated. Countless numbers of recent studied (done by reputable organizations, and published in reputable forms of media) have found that pornography actually DECREASES the amount of sexual violence. If you would like to see said studies, one must only search for it on the internet. You will find countless links from universities, private organizations, and government agencies that all say the same thing.
If an individual chooses to use drugs, he should be allowed to do so; it is the government's duty to protect his rights, and so he should be allowed to do so legally. The moment he resorts to crime to fulfill his addiction, he should be punished. I believe that one has the right to live freely, but one does not ever have the right to commit a crime and violate the rights of others. Again, you argue for a social net, but I believe that this is wrong to even ask for. No one is entitled to help him regain his health. It was his choice to use drugs, it is his responsibility to deal with the consequences.
One does not bear an obligation to anyone else. The only thing we have an obligation to is freedom.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
so in short: i refuse to agree with that notion that certain chemicals or behaviors lead to crimes. many consumers of those things don't commit crimes, and thus should not be punished. the crime itself should be prevented or punished, no matter what led to it. give people some credit, and don't put leash on them.
Jason Hinchliffe
I understand your point, but I would respond two-fold.
1. Sadly, children will be victimized by any number of parental errors or weaknesses. This can stem from excessive drinking (perfectly legal) to verbal abuse (perfectly legal) to general neglect, hypocrisy, unrealistic standards and overall stupidity and selfishness. To select a few things, and make them illegal, is logcially inconsistent, especially in the context of a free society where each person has the right to their person, regardless of how poor their decisions are.
2. The cost of the social safety net for the children of irresponsible parents is far lower that you would think. Really, it's a budgetary drop in the bucket. Although right wing media and talk radio would have you believe that welfare mom's are the bane of society, if we got rid of all of them, it would make no discernable difference. I believe this is a small price to pay for the vast majority of us who choose to use our liberty responsibly.
Debra Smith 200+
I do believe in the social safety net so we come from different perspectives. Would you agree that in countries where it is in place, that the government then should have the right to criminalize behaviours that could work to the detriment of the group?
Jordan Stella
By putting a social safety net in place, the government has already overstepped its bounds, and has already violated the rights of the governed. Any action taken henceforth is only a further violation of said rights.
Jordan Stella
Tim blackburn 30+
Nicole Lough
Jordan Stella
Nicole Lough
One problem specifically with American government, it that its too moral. Instead paying attention to scientific facts such as marijuana is not significantly unhealthy besides the smoking aspect, gays couples are natural to be in love, and other things i could get into, they think that God is their ruler. As we say in our pledge: I pledge allegiance to the flag... one nation under God..." :
Jordan Stella
Jason Hinchliffe
This is of course, not even to get into the economics of the issue, which in the case of drugs clearly shows that prohibition costs more both financially and socially than legallity.
But this comes back to one of my core points I love to harp on. We live in a democracy, however our principles have been ignored. All laws should resonate clearly with the guiding principles of a just society. It is our responsibility to make noise, and demand better. We have to educate ourselves, and be proactive. Things like social networks are powerful forces in democracies as they allow ideas to spread virally to millions in a short period of time, and for those people to respond and voice their opinion without having to completely disrupt their lives.
Look at what openmedia recently did using facebook when the oligopoly in Canadian telecom tried to stifle competiton by instituting usage based billing. The reaction they managed to capture must have made acutaries soil themselves. The minister of finance himself stepped up and struck down the CRTC's decision to allow it.
Jordan Stella
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Michael M 30+
Jason Hinchliffe
Michael M 30+
Just because you think something is right, does not make it right or moral or good. It is not true that everyone determines those categories for themselves. It does not mean our government should decriminalize it just because it would make some people very pleased. Societies derive norms and laws, not individuals.
The US should spend dollar for dollar helping addicts to stop using, as much as it spends for "protecting" the border.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Tim blackburn 30+
Tim Barnden
If all these businesses in Jordans (simplistic) example grew a conscience and decided to go paperless that would have a direct impact on deforrestation. Likewise- If no-one took cocaine there would be no drug cartels.
That said, I fully agree that drugs should be decriminalized (...following far more in depth studys of their physiological and psychological side effects than have ever been carried out, and subsequent education of the population of the REAL dangers of drug taking) as this would be a far more satisfactory state of affairs.
Appeal to change the laws by all means, but as it stands drug users have to bear some responsibility for drug cartels. To say otherwise is like dropping a hammer on someones head and then blaming their pain on the law of gravity.
I guess my utopian society would have no need of drug laws as no-one would want to screw themselves up like that.
However, if the US legalized drugs, prostitution, gambling etc. there would be hardly anyone in the prisons, as has been pointed out. Now I haven't done the maths but that destroys a BIG bussiness. How much American goods are produced by prisoners? It's legalized slavery! (without even considering that most of these inmates are young black men...)
Jason Hinchliffe
Cartels would lose their market if it were decrminalized. While they struggled to launder their moneyt so they could opewn up legitimate businesses, legal money would swoop in and eat up the market creating jobs, tax revenue and awareness.
Perhaps you guys forget, prohibition built the mafia. It always does. These things don't go away, so there's no point in fighting it.
Michael M 30+