Why does the US have so many victimless crime laws?

[woolfe9999]

I would say any person who defines themselves based on smoking weed has serious issues.

The real difference is you dont have a problem with smoking weed, but think that not wearing your seat-belt is incredibly moronic. That is what determines which one you think should be regulated.

Nope, you're dead wrong about my motives here. While I think pot smoking is less dangerous than driving without a seat belt, using heroin is probably more dangerous and I don't think that should be banned.

And you misunderstand what I mean about "defining yourself." It's the sum total of all these things and many others, not one act. A person might define themselves, or be defined by others, in part as "a pot smoker," to name one example. People aren't really defined as "seat belt wearers" and "non seat belt wearers." Some choices just aren't as central to who we are as are others.

You can disagree about this, but nonetheless the fact that one is done out in public on state property where the other is not ought to be a sufficient distinction.

- wolf

 

[nehalem256]

Their health insurance.. which is provided for by their employer and likely contributed to by the employee directly.

Yes but health insurance is a risk pool where at an employer everyone pays the same rate.

So people who do not engage in sodomy are subsidizing the behavior of those who do.

Not to mention special government programs to help poor people with HIV.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So what if the anti-sodomy laws were struck down. Why were the laws ever passed to start with?

Another victimless crime is making your own whiskey. Is the lost tax revenue that great that the government has to outlaw the production of whiskey?

Why cant someone make a little moonshine for their own private use?

Well, whiskey and moonshine are two different things, but I know what you are saying.
And it is not just a Tax issue. If it was, I could simply make moonshine and pay the taxes on it and all would be well. But I can't do that, you are not even allowed to pay taxes on moonshine with out the governments permission.

 

[nehalem256]

You can disagree about this, but nonetheless the fact that one is done out in public on state property where the other is not ought to be a sufficient distinction.

- wolf

So should minimum wage laws on private property be repealed as well?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes but health insurance is a risk pool where at an employer everyone pays the same rate.

So people who do not engage in sodomy are subsidizing the behavior of those who do.

Not to mention special government programs to help poor people with HIV.

So much wrong with this. Insurance is a private industry. If you let actuaries make laws we would ban showers, escalators, cars, and cell phones.

 

[woolfe9999]

So should minimum wage laws on private property be repealed as well?

I never argued that every law affecting private property should be repealed. I argued that the state has to show a more compelling interest in regulating personal choice on private property in order to justify it. This thread is about victimless crimes. Minimum wage laws are far afield here.

 

[xj0hnx]

What about all the gangs that are illegally selling drugs and shoot peope on the street killing your child in the cross-fire. Drugs are not a victimless crime. What is happening now is the drug dealer will sell your child heroine claiming there is no weed available. That is a death sentence to most people.

All of which is a direct result of them being illegal.

 

[nehalem256]

So much wrong with this. Insurance is a private industry. If you let actuaries make laws we would ban showers, escalators, cars, and cell phones.

Sodomy serves no public purpose. Cars, escalators, and showers do.

I never argued that every law affecting private property should be repealed. I argued that the state has to show a more compelling interest in regulating personal choice on private property in order to justify it. This thread is about victimless crimes. Minimum wage laws are far afield here.

Minimum wage laws restrict people's freedom. If an employer and employee both agree to a wage of $5/hr who is the victim?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Both seat belts and weed are relatively victimless. The victimization of other people is indirect in both cases. If you're a chronic smoker you can get lung cancer and that raises other people's healthcare costs, just like not wearing a seat belt.

Well, libertarians would consider defining healthcare costs as "victimization" to really be a type of cheating. It's creating a system where people are forced to be indirectly impacted by each other's individual decisions, and then, voila, suddenly everything is everyone else's business.

Not only is this really an end run around what "victimless" means, it has the unfortunate side-effect of being usable to justify nearly anything. So we start with "you must not smoke because it raises everyone's health care costs" -- which is debatable, BTW -- and you end up with people telling you how much soda you can drink, or worse.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Minimum wage laws restrict people's freedom. If an employer and employee both agree to a wage of $5/hr who is the victim?

The consumer of course, not that an imperialist such as yourself would care about that.

 

[nehalem256]

The consumer of course, not that an imperialist such as yourself would care about that.

How is the consumer a victim of lower prices?

And I am in favor of minimum wage laws anyway.

 

[Craig234]

I'll answer your question, but first answer this one:

Does the constitution guarantee you freedom from search without a warrant?

 

[nehalem256]

I'll answer your question, but first answer this one:

Does the constitution guarantee you freedom from search without a warrant?

No it does not

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, libertarians would consider defining healthcare costs as "victimization" to really be a type of cheating. It's creating a system where people are forced to be indirectly impacted by each other's individual decisions, and then, voila, suddenly everything is everyone else's business.

Not only is this really an end run around what "victimless" means, it has the unfortunate side-effect of being usable to justify nearly anything. So we start with "you must not smoke because it raises everyone's health care costs" -- which is debatable, BTW -- and you end up with people telling you how much soda you can drink, or worse.

You're somewhat misunderstanding me, perhaps more misunderstanding how I think about law and politics than anything else. I'm not a libertarian or any sort of ideologue because ideologues think categorically about things, and they like to analogize things which are quite clearly different. The ideologue looks at everything in terms of universals and ignores particulars. That's why "all" and "every" government action is good/bad for such people.

I said the "victimization" by way of healthcare costs is "indirect." Meaning that it isn't really the same as direct victimization. Those are really just words to express a difference in degree between the two. If the state is going to regulate something that may have an incidental or indirect effect on others, it needs a stronger justification than it does for regulating behavior that produces direct victims.

The way I analyze a government regulation of behavior is I first want to determine the degree of intrusion into personal liberty. Such things like where the activity takes place (public versus private), and the nature of the choice (what to put in your body versus what type of light bulb to buy), and its tendency to harm others (incidental or attenuated harms are less compelling). I then look at the degree of intrusion (e.g. a tax versus a ban), and finally I look at how effective it is or is projected to be. High degree of intrusion into highly personal and private behavior that is ineffective is the easy "no" case. Changing variables around may produce a different result.

My answer tends to come up a "no" in the vast majority of cases involving government regulating personal choices and behaviors, but not quite in all of them. The ideologue thinks I'm being logically inconsistent or arbitrary, or that I'm favoring behaviors I like and disfavoring those I don't like. I say the ideologue advocates a one size fits all approach because it's a short cut to thinking.

I realize that most people prefer to operate on universal ideological principles. It's a lot easier. When people raise issues like the sugary drink law in NY, I actually have to think about it to come up with an opinion.

 

[Craig234]

Most of these "victemless crime" laws are decades or centuries old and harken back to a time where the role of the government was seen as protecting individuals from the allure of the prurient interests. Government was very big in legislating morality in the 19th and much of the 20th century, and once those laws are on the books, getting them off is very difficult. We still have a generation of seniors who were raised under "Reefer Madness" logic in regards to marijuana; that dopeheads are murderous psychopaths hell-bent on raping and murdering America. It's all bullshit based on nothing in reality, and yet marijuana is still classified as a worse drug than cocaine. But in this day and age, who is going to stand up and say marijuana should be legal? The cry from the other side would be enormous; they're selling out your children to drug lords! So we're left with laws based on an outdated morality that can't be challenged because of political pressure.

America. Fuck yeah.

Actually, that's both a straw man, and has another error.

The straw man is that basically no one opposes marijuana because they think it'll cause 'murderous rape'. There was a brief moment of government propaganda with 'reefer madness' that has been laughed at for decades, almost since it was made and probably by most even when it was (remember drinking INCREASED during prohibition).

Rather, arguments against marijuana are largey based on reasonably accurate ideas about its actual harms, especially when used heavily.

Those include:

- it causes cancer
- it has negative psychological effects on many users. You say Carl Sagan, I say Chong (ya, a fictional character but there are plenty of real people to pick from he illustrates).
- There IS an issue with it being a 'gateway drug', IMO; as we understand addiction there's an issue with people learning to use and abuse drugs, and if they do it with one...

Those are the main issues IMO. We could discuss public safety - reduced driving reflexes, things like that train crash when a pot smoker didn't operate the gate... but minor IMO.

Now, can someone smoke a joint and not really be hurt? Ya. Just as they can have a drink and not only not be hurt but helped. And you get others who abuse.

Now the thing is, while I think those harms are real and it's a bad idea to use pot, I have to weight that against:

- the issue of 'personal freedom'
- the harm of a black market, where pot is the #1 cash crop of major agricultural producer California while Mexican drug lords are very violent, killing families to for co-operation etc.
- the enormous costs of criminal justice for this - both to taxpayers and to causing far more harm to users than the pot ever would
- the benefits of tax income rather than those massive tax expenditures

And on balance, I lean very much towards legalization - with heavy anti-use education.

The issue I said I think you are incorrect on: I think the support for marijuana laws is not as strong as you think.

I suspect Obama could help himself a lot by coming out for de-criminalization (he'd lose all those right-wing votes he has locked up except the Libertarians).

Jimmy Carter promised (and broke it) in his campaign to pursue legalization. There's long been public support and I think it's going up, as medical marijuana laws show.

I think there's an opportunity for politicians to lead from behind on this and legalize pot.

Save234

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I said the "victimization" by way of healthcare costs is "indirect." Meaning that it isn't really the same as direct victimization. Those are really just words to express a difference in degree between the two. If the state is going to regulate something that may have an incidental or indirect effect on others, it needs a stronger justification than it does for regulating behavior that produces direct victims.

I don't think we really disagree about much here other than labels and semantics.

The ideologue thinks I'm being logically inconsistent or arbitrary, or that I'm favoring behaviors I like and disfavoring those I don't like. I say the ideologue advocates a one size fits all approach because it's a short cut to thinking.

Well, this is the ages-old conflict between the principled and the pragmatic -- the former considers the latter fickle; the latter views the former as naive or unrealistic. I'm more of the former than the latter, while you appear to be the opposite.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Rather, arguments against marijuana are largey based on reasonably accurate ideas about its actual harms, especially when used heavily.

Those include:

- it causes cancer
- it has negative psychological effects on many users. You say Carl Sagan, I say Chong (ya, a fictional character but there are plenty of real people to pick from he illustrates).
- There IS an issue with it being a 'gateway drug', IMO; as we understand addiction there's an issue with people learning to use and abuse drugs, and if they do it with one...

The problem is that these are not really reasonably arguments either.
The cancer argument is mostly bunk. It is not any more carcinogenic, and a good bit less then, many other legal substances. Legalization and control would actually improve on this.

The 'gateway drug' concept has been disproved so many times it is a wonder it still comes up in these conversations at all. The fact is there is a lot more people that have smoked pot and never tried any 'hard drug' then there are people that used marijuana and that led to other drug use. There is in fact a stronger relation to tobacco and alcohol and hard drugs then there is with marijuana.

 

[xj0hnx]

The 'gateway drug' concept has been disproved so many times it is a wonder it still comes up in these conversations at all. The fact is there is a lot more people that have smoked pot and never tried any 'hard drug' then there are people that used marijuana and that led to other drug use. There is in fact a stronger relation to tobacco and alcohol and hard drugs then there is with marijuana.

There's also the fact that there are a LOT of people I have met that didn't start with pot, some started with LSD, some with X, some went straight to the meth, but one thing they almost unanimously have in common is they drank before any of it. Anyone that uses pot as a "gateway drug", without mentioning alcohol is a fucking imbecile.

 

[0roo0roo]

because retarded people like banning things. i think they managed to ban fois gras in california, so retards on both sides of the fence.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think we really disagree about much here other than labels and semantics.



Well, this is the ages-old conflict between the principled and the pragmatic -- the former considers the latter fickle; the latter views the former as naive or unrealistic. I'm more of the former than the latter, while you appear to be the opposite.

I'd rather call it ideology versus pragmatism. Principles are highly important in the way I view government and politics. Yet the decision to wear a seat belt is not the same as a decision to have an abortion and I'm not going to pretend it is because some abstract paradigmatic belief system tells me to. That doesn't mean I don't value personal liberty. It just means I don't think a violation of one is identical to a violation of the other. Any time someone tries to operate on one or two ruling principles which are applied categorically, it ends up producing absurd results in the real world. And often the absurd results violate the ruling principles themselves, while the ideologue doesn't even realize it.

 

[dank69]

Actually, that's both a straw man, and has another error.

The straw man is that basically no one opposes marijuana because they think it'll cause 'murderous rape'. There was a brief moment of government propaganda with 'reefer madness' that has been laughed at for decades, almost since it was made and probably by most even when it was (remember drinking INCREASED during prohibition).

Rather, arguments against marijuana are largey based on reasonably accurate ideas about its actual harms, especially when used heavily.

Those include:

- it causes cancer
- it has negative psychological effects on many users. You say Carl Sagan, I say Chong (ya, a fictional character but there are plenty of real people to pick from he illustrates).
- There IS an issue with it being a 'gateway drug', IMO; as we understand addiction there's an issue with people learning to use and abuse drugs, and if they do it with one...

Those are the main issues IMO. We could discuss public safety - reduced driving reflexes, things like that train crash when a pot smoker didn't operate the gate... but minor IMO.

Now, can someone smoke a joint and not really be hurt? Ya. Just as they can have a drink and not only not be hurt but helped. And you get others who abuse.

Now the thing is, while I think those harms are real and it's a bad idea to use pot, I have to weight that against:

- the issue of 'personal freedom'
- the harm of a black market, where pot is the #1 cash crop of major agricultural producer California while Mexican drug lords are very violent, killing families to for co-operation etc.
- the enormous costs of criminal justice for this - both to taxpayers and to causing far more harm to users than the pot ever would
- the benefits of tax income rather than those massive tax expenditures

And on balance, I lean very much towards legalization - with heavy anti-use education.

The issue I said I think you are incorrect on: I think the support for marijuana laws is not as strong as you think.

I suspect Obama could help himself a lot by coming out for de-criminalization (he'd lose all those right-wing votes he has locked up except the Libertarians).

Jimmy Carter promised (and broke it) in his campaign to pursue legalization. There's long been public support and I think it's going up, as medical marijuana laws show.

I think there's an opportunity for politicians to lead from behind on this and legalize pot.

Save234

I bet 100% of heroin users drank water at some point prior to trying heroin. Therefore, drinking water leads to heroin abuse.

 

[xj0hnx]

I bet 100% of heroin users drank water at some point prior to trying heroin. Therefore, drinking water leads to heroin abuse.

I was totally strung out on ham sammich's before I met heroin.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes but health insurance is a risk pool where at an employer everyone pays the same rate.

So people who do not engage in sodomy are subsidizing the behavior of those who do.

No more so than healthy people are subsidizing the behavior of unhealthy people. There are many kinds of "unhealthy", of which HIV among gay people is not one that is singularly significant.

There are far more people in the US with obesity-related health problems than there are with HIV. What primarily causes obesity? Too many more calories being consumed than are burned off through exercise/physical activity.

Not to mention special government programs to help poor people with HIV.

Everything about poor people is subsidized by the non-poor. Yours is not a good argument for anti-sodomy laws.

 

[woolfe9999]

I bet 100% of heroin users drank water at some point prior to trying heroin. Therefore, drinking water leads to heroin abuse.

He's referring to research that has been done on the issue. The trouble with the research is that it can't rule out the "gateway effect" being caused by the illegality of it. Someone tries one illegal drug, it makes it easier for them to decide to try another. Not only can this not be ruled out, there is actually no other plausible explanation. Using pot doesn't make you physically crave heroin. The only reason pot might be more likely a gateway than alcohol is *because* of prohibition. Legalize it and shouldn't be any more of a gateway than alcohol. The "gateway" effect is an argument in favor of legalizing it IMO.

 

[blankslate]

I chalk it up to the religious nature of many of the initial colonists from Europe despite the fact that many of the writers of the Constitution were rather independent minded when it came to religious doctrine.