Victimless Crime Laws

[Feslin]

Personally, I am very interested in the complete abolishment of Victimless Crime Laws.

I'm sure most of you know what these are, but if not, here's the general idea of it;

A victimless crime is a "crime" in which the only participants have given consent and harm no one else. For instance, gambling, drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc etc.

So, before I go further, what are YOUR takes on victimless crime laws?

 

[1069]

Personally, I am very interested in the complete abolishment of Victimless Crime Laws.

I'm sure most of you know what these are, but if not, here's the general idea of it;

A victimless crime is a "crime" in which the only participants have given consent and harm no one else. For instance, gambling, drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc etc.

So, before I go further, what are YOUR takes on victimless crime laws?

Exactly the same as yours.
Have you read Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country?
It contains some of the best and most concise arguments I've ever read for the complete abolishment of consensual crime.
Even McWilliams' sadly ironic death was a mute statement about the absurdity of victimless "crime": a vocal supporter of medical cannabis, McWilliams (battling both AIDS and cancer) was investigated by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and convicted for violating federal marijuana laws. He choked to death on his own vomit when he was forced to switch from cannabis to Marinol in order to remain free on bond pending sentencing.

 

[Feslin]

Never have read the book, may buy it now though.

Sadistically, I find the ironic death somewhat funny, feel kind of guilty for that =/

Anywho, Victimless Crimes are nothing more than Taliban-style moral policing. I have a burning desire to abolish them fully...

Ah well, all things in time I guess.

 

[jfuh]

Abolish them all.
Keep government out of our lives - Gov should have no say in what we do in our lives.

 

[Thelost1]

this can only apply to the adult population, if kids could do drugs i think taht they would be more prevalent. And there should be heavy taxation on these products, and strict controls about how strong a product can be.

 

[Feslin]

this can only apply to the adult population,

Part of the philosophy is the "age of consent" idea.

And there should be heavy taxation on these products,

Why?

and strict controls about how strong a product can be

Again, why?

 

[Billo_Really]

Welcome to Debate Politics

I absolutely believe that if there is no victim, there is no crime.

It really sucks having to obey bullshit laws that are designed to be taken advantage of by specialized interest groups.

 

[Synch]

Why?

Some things have negative impacts on society that are not taken account into the S&D, for example cocaine, it deteriorates the health of the consumer and makes them less productive workers, just like meth or tobacco, we must increase the prices of these products to show both their explicit and implicit costs, because most people are too foolish to know the implicit ones or control their purchase amounts that reflect the total cost of using that product.

It's like pollution.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

A victimless crime is a "crime" in which the only participants have given consent and harm no one else. For instance, gambling, drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc etc.

Gambling and drugs promote decadence and lead people to abandon their duties to family and society as a whole. Prostitution is a vile industry of sexual exploitation-- usually of underaged runaways-- that teaches prostitutes to commoditize their bodies and their customers to treat people as objects.

These activities need to be controlled. The only reason to abolish the laws against them is the simple fact that the laws against them are not only ineffective, but actively counterproductive; all of the problems associated with these practices are made worse by outlawing them.

However, these things can be effectively controlled by other means, such as educational campaigns (funded by "sin" taxes), subsidized rehabilitation, licensing and regulation, and a properly organized and funded system of family law.

 

[FallingPianos]

Gambling and drugs promote decadence and lead people to abandon their duties to family and society as a whole.

not necessarily. there are a lot of people that gamble occasionally for entertainment purposes, and a lot of people who remain in control while using illicit drugs - especially marijuana. I dont think its right to tell these people that they can no longer gamble or do drugs.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I dont think its right to tell these people that they can no longer gamble or do drugs.

I'm inclined to agree with this. However, I don't think it's right to ignore the effects that their less-temperant counterparts have on society, either. Like drinking, these activities can be relatively harmless and even socially beneficial... but they are dangerous and need to be controlled.

 

[FallingPianos]

I'm inclined to agree with this. However, I don't think it's right to ignore the effects that their less-temperant counterparts have on society, either. Like drinking, these activities can be relatively harmless and even socially beneficial... but they are dangerous and need to be controlled.

I just think there has to be a better solution that doesnt infringe on the rights of people who gamble and do drugs responsibly, there really is no simple solution though.

 

[Thelost1]

Part of the philosophy is the "age of consent" idea.



Why?



Again, why?

The reason we need age of consent is because a 9-year old cannot be trusted with making that kind of decision, and someone could easily pressure them to do drugs, or something. And because when you smoke things the smoke doesn't just go away.

Secondhand Smokes You.
(in Soviet Russia, you smoke secondhand)

 

[Feslin]

The reason we need age of consent is because a 9-year old cannot be trusted with making that kind of decision, and someone could easily pressure them to do drugs, or something. And because when you smoke things the smoke doesn't just go away.

Secondhand Smokes You.
(in Soviet Russia, you smoke secondhand)

I never said we didn't need age of consent, *confused*

 

[Patrickt]

Gambling is legal in most places. It can be run as a business only in a few places and by the government-run numbers racket.

When the casinos opened in Tupelo, Mississippi, the mortgage foreclosure rate skyrocketed in Memphis, Tennessee. A relative of mine had a husband who decided he could beat the casinos. They're broke now. But, it's all legal.

What I really like are those who justify legalizing the activities because of the taxes they could bring in. Like alcohol and tobacco, they plan on using these activities to generate a lot of money for the government to fritter away. A $15 joint might not be all that popular.

 

[shuamort]

Exactly the same as yours.
Have you read Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country?
It contains some of the best and most concise arguments I've ever read for the complete abolishment of consensual crime.
Even McWilliams' sadly ironic death was a mute statement about the absurdity of victimless "crime": a vocal supporter of medical cannabis, McWilliams (battling both AIDS and cancer) was investigated by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and convicted for violating federal marijuana laws. He choked to death on his own vomit when he was forced to switch from cannabis to Marinol in order to remain free on bond pending sentencing.

I'll second this book. A very good read chock-full of info.

 

[jfuh]

I'm inclined to agree with this. However, I don't think it's right to ignore the effects that their less-temperant counterparts have on society, either. Like drinking, these activities can be relatively harmless and even socially beneficial... but they are dangerous and need to be controlled.

Prohibition proved to not work at all. Pretty much every state now has circumnavigated thier own no gambling laws with river boat casinos and so on proving it doesn't work either.
There are always going to be abusers but governmental intervention into what ppl can obviously do in thier own homes is not going to resolve anything. We don't need a nanny state.

 

[Thelost1]

I never said we didn't need age of consent, *confused*

You asked about why laws needed to be differant for minos, i told you.

 

[1069]

You asked about why laws needed to be differant for minos, i told you.

To my knowledge, Feslin never asked any such thing.
Minors are incapable of informed consent; anyone who would need you to "tell" them this because they didn't already know it probably has no business being on the internet, and wouldn't be able to figure out how to turn on a computer, anyway.

 

[Thelost1]

he asked me to explain why me views were such. But anyways, this is pointless.

 

[rathi]

Drugs can be dangerous and can have a serious negative effect on society. Look at the boxer rebellion and Chinese opium usage. Drugs should be legal purely because making them illegal harms society more than making them legal. Taxes should be used to pay for programs to help counteract the usage of drugs. Also, drugs should be prevented from being advertised or marketed, as corporations selling drugs have a major conflict on interest with public good and profit. Gambling and prostitution have a similar role. The real key is making sure that the regulation fits the specific vice. For example, marijuana and low stakes poker are not the same as casino's or meth.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is an interesting question. In general, my philosophy is that your right to live your life the way you want to live your life extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same.

Thus, I am against the drug war. I am against laws that ban prostitution. I am against laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying. However, I think the question gets a good deal more complicated. For example, an individual should be able to enjoy a beer in their own home. However, should a local municipality be able to by majority vote ban the sale of liquor in their local municipality?

If prostitution was legal at the state level, should individual neighborhoods be allowed to enact ordinances baning it in their neighborhoods. My point is that it seems to me that the more one digs into this question, the more complicated it becomes.

 

[jfuh]

This is an interesting question. In general, my philosophy is that your right to live your life the way you want to live your life extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same.

Thus, I am against the drug war. I am against laws that ban prostitution. I am against laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying. However, I think the question gets a good deal more complicated. For example, an individual should be able to enjoy a beer in their own home. However, should a local municipality be able to by majority vote ban the sale of liquor in their local municipality?

If prostitution was legal at the state level, should individual neighborhoods be allowed to enact ordinances baning it in their neighborhoods. My point is that it seems to me that the more one digs into this question, the more complicated it becomes.

Just take smoking for example. No one should have the right to tell someone they can't smoke. However the rediculous nonsense of a smoking section in a restruant of one side being smoking the other not and there being 0 barrier between the two, come on who are you kidding.
I as a non-smoker should not have to sit in a section that is sucking in your exhaust fumes because you are needing a quick fix.
So this impedeing thing is really..... it's too iffy and would require are good president to define just what degrading or dehumanizing impedements meand:bolt
Back on track. Perhaps a fix to this would be, do whatever you want to do, as long as you are not bring physical harm to another person?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Just take smoking for example. No one should have the right to tell someone they can't smoke. However the rediculous nonsense of a smoking section in a restruant of one side being smoking the other not and there being 0 barrier between the two, come on who are you kidding.
I as a non-smoker should not have to sit in a section that is sucking in your exhaust fumes because you are needing a quick fix.
So this impedeing thing is really..... it's too iffy and would require are good president to define just what degrading or dehumanizing impedements meand:bolt
Back on track. Perhaps a fix to this would be, do whatever you want to do, as long as you are not bring physical harm to another person?

Well, actually, a business owner ought to have the right to prohibit or restrict smoking on his or her property.

The question I am posing is that while I think any liberal, libertarian, or civil libertarian would agree that the government has no place legislating morality, the gray area is what we would think would be appropriate for local municipalities. For example, I do not believe that drug use should be criminalized. However, I also would certainly support a local ordinance preventing drugs being sold in my community. Basically, while I would have no problem with someone smoking pot on their back porch, I would have a problem with someone setting up a stand and selling it on my corner. You kind of see what I am getting at?

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, actually, a business owner ought to have the right to prohibit or restrict smoking on his or her property.

The question I am posing is that while I think any liberal, libertarian, or civil libertarian would agree that the government has no place legislating morality, the gray area is what we would think would be appropriate for local municipalities. For example, I do not believe that drug use should be criminalized. However, I also would certainly support a local ordinance preventing drugs being sold in my community. Basically, while I would have no problem with someone smoking pot on their back porch, I would have a problem with someone setting up a stand and selling it on my corner. You kind of see what I am getting at?

That would, I would think, fall under the current guidelines set by local zoning laws. There are already laws that govern where businesses can be set up, and even what sort of businesses can be set up in a particular location.

You say that you would support a a local ordinance against marijuana sales in your community. By that do you mean that you would be against regulated stores being allowed to sell it, or against someone just growing it and selling it while bypassing regulations? There is a big difference.