How do you feel about victimless crimes?

Question

Prostitution, drugs, gambling… in the interest of freedom and free enterprise, why should these things be largely illegal? Or am I going to get the Republican line "freedom isn’t free" or "you can’t have that much freedom"?

Aren’t these things just legislated morality?

St. Bastard- in this case I'm making the assumption that the victim and the perpetrature can't be the same thing. Point taken though.

The prostitution spreads STD's arguement holds no water, becasue consentual sex spreads STDs too.

kevw25- Amazing you put your foot in your mouth like that. A DUI is strictly alcohol related. A DWI is drug related. I'm not saying these might lead to questionable behavior, that's another issue. By and large they don't lead to further problems.

time_wounds_all_heel…- you don't know a lot about the drug trade. The drugs you're talking about meth, crack, etc that destroy families, are a result of the prohibition of other, softer drugs. It may be hard to realize, but heroin and cocaine are a lot weaker than many prescription drugs. It's just that they have an artificial crimianl element attached to them. I'm suggesting that maybe it's time to stop kidding ourselves thinking we'll eradicate these things at the same time creating large, profitable black markets for them.

And for all the 'Nanny State' Haters... Aren't we talking about a nanny state here? If some family destroys themselves with gambling or drugs or prostitution... isn't that their problem?

libsticker- Come on- traffic laws are totally different. They;re designed to avoid the potential victim in another car.

truthisback- OH TRUTH- I wasn't meaning to offend your conservatism there... easy now. I don't see you as a Republican anyway, I see you as more of a money-loving conservative. That's a compliment by the way.

Dude- just as truthisback won't let me have it both ways, neither can you. Republicans seem to want to pick and choose what they want to regulate and what they don't. If you're against the so called 'nanny state' then you'd better be prepared to back that up and let people make their own mistakes. And when you attack 'liberals' and say 'with freedom comes responsibility' you give good money-grubbing conservatives like truthisback bad names since you're obviously regurgitating conservative talk radio. next time you answer my question you better bring something better than rush limbaugh punch lines.

Truth- the difference between you and me, is that you see things like universal healthcare as 'paying for someone else' while I see it as paying for something everyone in a given society collectively needs- so why not spend the same amount of money and guarantee it?

Trouble Maker- are you the real trouble maker? best argument so far. although, who's to say when your wife cooks for you she can't claim that the whole time you were actually at a restaurant and that you owe her? the line between business and non-business is not hard to define.

libsticker- I have no problem with making compulsive neglecting gamgling a crime (if you gamble your family's well-being away) but I don't have a family, I can only gamble my life away. don't i have the right to potentially make a mistake with my own money? Don't I have the right to potentially contract an STD if I'm in a slump? Don't I have the right to fry my own brain with enough coke to kill a horse?

Answer 1

Legalize it, regulate it, and tax the he** out of it. It's what they do for alcohol and tobacco. Why not prostitution, drugs, and gambling?

I really don't understand why people keep thinking that if you legalize prostitution, it would still be as it is today (pimps and street walkers). Look at Nevada, where it is legal in several counties. It's all in brothels, and very controlled. Condoms are MANDATORY, and since mandatory testing of the women started in 1986, NO cases of HIV have been present in any of the prostitute in the legal brothels.

And with drugs, you wouldn't have drug dealers an more. It could be sold in the same manner as alcohol. You have to be 21 to buy alcohol, and it would most likely be the same for drugs. There are currently laws on the books about driving while intoxicated, and these laws pertain to both alcohol and illegal drugs.

Gambling: It already happens. How many casinos are there now on reservations? My wife works at one in our area (and no, she is not Native American, nor a tribe member). It is the largest employer in our area, and they have put a TON of money back into the community.

Answer 2

Prostitution is sometimes (not always) a victimless crime. What if the "john" has a spouse? What if the prostitute has an undisclosed STD? Tax it and regulate it (requiring STD testing)

Drugs should be treated the same way alcohol is treated - taxed and regulated. Stiffer penalties for intoxicated driving (alcohol AND drugs) are required.

Most states engage in gambling (the lottery), so why can't people?

To answer the last question - yes. Another fine example of the government overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others"

Answer 3

Let's not confuse crimes (which are illegal) with vices that may be legal but remain harmful to the commonwealth.
I fear that it is hard to legislate effective deterrents against the behaviour of the irrational - the lustful drunk gambler you mention (sounds like a racing journalist I know).
Maybe neighboorhood self-regulation might work.
You are also raising the question of how much the Law should be used to protect us from ourselves and the consequences of our own self-harm.
Speeding on the highway is actually a victimless crime unless you have an accident. And so is 'carrying an offensive weapon'

Answer 4

These laws were all put in place by legislators that put enforcing their religion on other people ahead of freedom.

Theocracy creeps up slowly on a nation.
If we let this continue, one day in the future we will be back to witch trials and stonings.

You are responsible for your own actions. If drug use, gambling or any other irresponsible action you do causes you to be broke or homeless, that is your problem and yours alone.

We must eliminate the laws concerning victimless crime as well as welfare that makes every taxpayer a victim of someone else's irresponsibility.

Answer 5

Why are those lines "Republican" lines????

Libs are the ones trying to take our economic freedom....

Victimless crimes should not be crimes. Individual choices should be made by the individual The government has no function trying to save people from themselves. But that also means that if you get AIDS from being or visiting a prostitute, you're SOL if you wanted me to help pay for your treatment.

You can't have that one both ways.

Answer 6

Yes they should be legalized, and if anybody is destroying their own health and wealth that should be up to them. Prohibition in any sector has always led to corruption and the growing of a mafia. I'm cynical enough to suspect that a lot of the money spent in the anti-drugs campaigns actually comes from the big dealers who want to protect their interests.
.
As far as prostitution is concerned, exactly the fact that it is criminalized and unregulated makes it dangerous to the punter and the prostitute alike. As long as pimping is still prosecuted I'd be all in favour of legalizing it.

And you are right these things are illegal because the state wants control, the motivation actually ranges from ancient religious ideas to modern scientific ones. There will always be people who think it's dangerous if other people have fun.

Answer 7

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

-- C.S. Lewis

Many victimless crimes attempt to save us from ourselves. Because they are intended to be "for our own good", the consience of law enforcers may rest quite easily as they regulate more and more of our lives.

The linked article below by Murray Rothbard significantly impacted my philosophy on crime and punishment. I hope that you'll read it. While it may be too much to ask, I hope that some of the defenders of vice crimes will read it as well.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard145.html

Answer 8

As long as everyone is a consenting adult, keep on keeping on. But if you have an STD don't expect me to give money for antibiotics, if your drug problem is out of control and drugs are more important than food don't ask me for food stamps, go ahead gamble your life away but don't look to me when your house is gone. Everything in moderation including moderation.

Answer 9

No such thing as a victim less crime .

Given the chance man will destroy himself over and over again because he simply can not find a balance .

How much sex could one purchase or how much could one gamble .

Since pricing guidelines are discriminatory in nature what price is placed on the community that allows its people to lose everything .

As it is now a rich man can have all the sex he wants and gamble and use drugs legally . Just not all the time or in the case of many drugs just not in the United States .

Would we have free lance professionals" prostitutes "who managed their own affairs or would they need managers .

How would you tax this service and could it be given away for a reduction in taxes to be paid . Sort of a zero sum business .

The charity or free sex given to her loved one could offset all taxes she might have to pay from her business activity . Since now her body is a business then all its activity must be taxed accordingly and then what about women who simply have an affair . Should they be forced to pay a tax on the service .

I know right now that if I give money away to others they must declare it as income and pay taxes accordingly .

Do we want a tax on sex for real .

How much government do you want already .

Answer 10

We have plenty of laws where there is no victim. Speeding, illegal U turn, hunting without a license, jay walking, etc. These particular vices that you mention, do in fact have victims, the children of compulsive gamblers, the fatherless children of hookers, and the family of drug offenders. I do not agree that we should legislate morality, and other societies have made the vices you mention legal, and they seem to have better control of them then we do. Should it be the responsibility of government to intercede when we think someone is morally harming their family, I think not, we should leave that to the family.

Response: Adam: I agree with you that we should not legislate morality, and make laws to inhibit peoples vices, it doesn't work and we know it by prohibition. I was merely pointing out that there are victims, (family members). Traffic laws, like the seat belt law, or helmet law should be included in that. Goes back to the constitution and if we keep giving up rights, how long before we have none left to defend.