Consentual Crime vs. Freedom

There are a lot of studies that show polygamy has harmful effects to the second and subsequent wives.

 

I believe we have the right to shape the society into what we think is good and moral. I would prefer a more virtuous society rather than one where things like drug use, prostitution, and suicide are looked at as just choices, as if those choices are comparable to choosing the color of your car or what to wear. I personally would not want to raise my children in a society that looks at those things you listed as harmless (gay marriage being the exception).

Also, you say you can't find justification for outlawing them. Well, think about this: What is the justification for making them legal? I can't think of a good reason other than there are some people who really want to engage in these activities. But it's not like we are talking about fundamental rights here, like free speech, right to vote, equality under the law, etc. So no one is being oppressed here.

 

Lots of libertarians will agree with you Chris...to varying degrees.

The key is 'harm to anyone else.' How do you define that? Do you just mean direct personal harm....or do you take a broader societal view?

 

Listen to Bill Hicks. Not only is he funny, you'll get a lot out of what he has to say.

"Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about p*rnography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I ****, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemna on how to answer this, I'll answer for you. NONE OF YOUR ****ING BUSINESS Take that to the bank, cash it and take it on a vacation outta my ****ing life. And stop bringing shotguns to UFO sightings, they might be here to pick me up and take me with 'em."

-Bill Hicks

Oh, and for those posters who will point out how society has to bear the cost and therefore has a say, how do you (if you do) reconcile the view that society has a right to tell individuals what to do when it comes to drugs but we can't regulate fire arms?

 

1. It's a wee bit fascist for the onus to be on individuals to justify personal freedom. Most people who are into that whole freedom thing would say that the government has to justify restricting peoples freedom. The people should never have to be the ones justifying an expectation of freedom.

2. I think the justification is that human beings are happier doing what they want to do. You wanna kick back and drink a beer while you watch the game, I want to roll a J. The justification is that when social/moral conservatives drop the anal retention down a notch or two more people are happy.

3. I think there are plenty of people being oppressed. There are many religions which use drugs that they see as key to their spirituality but because said spirituality falls outside of what the general society sees as an acceptable religion they are not allowed to practice their beliefs.

4. Anytime anyone is prevented from making a personal choice that is oppression. You simply don't recognize it as oppressive because of the certain normative ideologies you subscribe to. If the vast majority of people in this country were Hindu and hamburgers were outlawed, I'm sure a lot of poeple would be asking what business Hindus have telling Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, diagnositcs, etc. what to eat. Just because you believe your moral system is the correct one does not mean it is any less oppressive for you to force that way of life on other people.

And what is the basis of that right? Because the majority of people believe that everyone should have to live a certain way? Read John Rawls. That ain't exactly a just principle for ordering a society. The truth is, if people were given a sphere of personal freedom and others could learn that others' personal choices had no effect on them then we'd all be a lot happier. But, we still have this very primitive animalistic/tribal urge to try to suppress anything which is a "threat" to our way of life. If we could get over that we could maybe start getting somewhere on the important things. Like, I don't know, feeding people instead of worrying who they're having sex with or what they're smoking.

 

Most of the crime around here revolves around addicts needing money for more meth or heroin. If give more people the opportunity to get addicted to these drugs, then you have to expect more crime as a result. You will also have more people who will be in jail for these crimes, and need help from local and national social services which are paid for by our tax dollars. So there is a financial cost to everyone if there are more drug abusers.

 

Drugs harm a man biologically and mentally. Since a man is part of society, when a man is hurt a society is hurt. When all members are hurt by drugs the whole society is hurt, willingness or not does not make the end result different. The law is not just for the individuals, law is the mechanism for the society to protect itself from damage.

The society is like a human body. If a good cell willingly becomes a bad cell, like a cancerous one, it's the right of the body to eradicate such a cell.

What one man practices has a chain effect on others since we are all interconnected. When a man becomes too addicted to heroine, he'd lost the desire to socialize, to work, to be productive ... basically, he becomes a piece of garbage, which doesn't only hurt his family but also the society. He's become a bad cell, his supplier is to be outlawed.

Sure, a rich man doesn't need to work and be productive too, but either he earned it or someone else earned it for him. Most people aren't rich enough to stop working, so the society doesn't care about it much. On the other side, drugs are capable of making many people cease to be productive to the point that's harmful to the operation of society.

The basic point is, freedom is not free. Some American scholars have done research confirming this "common sense". The society has the right to determine the cost of freedom versus the benefits of freedom. Free speech is allowed because the society regards free speech, although with some ill effects, being still better than having none of it. Drugs are outlawed because the society believes drug freedom always costs more than it brings. I believe it's true as well.

 

An empirical claim requires empirical evidence. Where is here? And how the hell do you come up with the idea that drugs are responsible for said crime? I got news for you, 27% of our state prison population are in their simply for nonviolent offenses (http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/10so.htm). The fact is if we decriminalized, or even legalized many drugs, the social problems would go away. Why? Because their would be no crime associated with turf wars or control of the business (the vast majority of crime associated with drug use) and because it would mean that people could be treated rather than punished.

Obviously culture comes in to play. But the Netherlands doesn't seem to have much of a drug problem: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm

 

A cute analogy, but not a single warrant in that entire argument. Analogies illustrate arguments, they do not make them. I don't see how smoking a duby, knocking back a few beers, shrooming, or tripping while watching "The Wall" on a friday night I don't think that you can offer any evidence that that really meaningfully impacts a society.

And if you honestly will say that people's individual freedom can be limited by how said freedom effects society, then what's to stop us from forcing individuals into certain professions in which they are talented for the sake of the society? Choosing to do certain things e.g. smoking mar1juana probably has less of an impact on a society than say, deciding you prefer working at McDonald's to becoming a doctor. Both these actions (theoretically) negatively impact the society, why can one be regulated and the other can't?

Once again, not a single warrant in here. It's pretty obvious that cable television makes people dumber and want to socialize less, does that mean we should outlaw the watching of cable tv? Also, your characterization of drug users is way off. Just because someone uses drugs does not mean that they are an addict or that they are no longer a 'productive' member of society.

Who are these scholars? If their reasoning is as empirically grounded as yours I don't think I've read them. Pretty much anyone that looks into the issue will argue that the war on drugs hurts a lot more than it helps. You say you believe that drugs are harmful to a society, yet you have produced no evidence to back this up. Before you support policies that put thousands of nonviolent Americans in prison ever year, why don't you produce something other than blind faith and a few cutesy analogies.

Oh, and as for the idea that drugs do not aid a society, in the words of Bill Hicks:

"f you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL ****ing high on drugs. The Beatles were so ****ing high they let Ringo sing a few songs."

 

Just because they're not in there for violent crimes doesn't mean they never perpetrated them. I personally think that the drug laws are too strict in this country but I see why some people justify them. If you legalize drugs all it does is create a bigger market for them. When there's a bigger market for them there's more at stake. Therefore, I think you're conclusion that turf wars would go away to be a very shaky assumption. If there's more at stake, there's more incentive to have a bigger piece of the pie.

Your information about the Netherlands fails to take into account that the areas of highest drug use in this country are typically in areas of high race mixing, something that might not be as prevalent in the Netherlands. Also, it might be too small of a country to compare to the US. It'd be equivalent to taking the numbers in Austin and comparing them to the whole state. While it may give a good idea of the comparative use and violence it may be missing out on other aspects due to the fact that it's such a small subset from which to draw your data.

I do appreciate the data and the effort, though. It's just my opinion and I could be very wrong.

 

I'm with you, of course the definition of 'harm' is the tricky part as noted. Am I against polygamy? you bet, but I don't push my ideas on others if it doesn't concern me.

I believe that in order to get to the answers that matter to us most (whatever they may be), we have to have the freedom of individuality, thus having diversity to reach that state. That may sound bogus to some, but I will never interfere with someone else's life unless they ask me to or if it is clearly harming them. However, we can dream/debate about it all we want, it won't ever happen in this country because a lot of things are about control. To take away that control, in telling people how to live, you lose a lot of power. Also, a lot of people are happy to be controlled and told what to do, and that's fine. Due to this diversity and that the status quo is ok with being told what to do, it is forever unlikely for your suggestion to ever occur.

 

If we decriminalize most of the gray stuff, most people would want to legalize it and form all these rules and regulations to protect idiots (and the unlucky people around them) who can't get the no harm, no foul idea.

In the end, you'll still get this scary world where one half is scared of the other despite big government giving the thumbs up (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms)

 

The argument many economists like Friedman make is that if the drugs are legal, then corporations will start selling them. The cola wars were a lot less violent than the coca wars.

I'm not saying the Netherlands is a perfect analogy, but what the heck does "race mixing" have to do with anything?

 

simple answer
Humanity is not Mature enough or Responsible Enough for that level freedom

Rocket River

 

Other people's business is other people's business.

 

I think that this is a tremendously problematic arguement for three reasons.

• The effect that cocaine has upon the heart are horrendous. Here is a general page on cocaine and the heart. Because of this cocaine use isn't a victimless crime. It creates a public health problem, and by increasing visits to the ER from uninsured patients. The costs therefore are more workers unable to contribute to the economy, and increased health care costs to pay for increased unpaid procedures.
  
  
• It is very difficult to understand the nature of cocaine addiction without experiencing it first hand. It doesn't make you feel bad when you don't have it. What it does is directly affect the centers of the brain involved in behavior rewards. People addicted to cocaine simply don't want to stop. Ever. In this way any consenting adult or free will arguments are somewhat moot. It would be like asking someone who's been brainwashed what they want. At that point they aren't free anymore.
  
  
• People who are chronic alcoholics go on benders, fall down, vomit, and generally annoy people. Heroin addicts are even more considerate. They either fall asleep, or stop breathing and die quietly.
  
  Chronic cocaine or crystal users become aggressive, paranoid, irrational, and violent. They think the guy next door is trying to spy on them. They beat the crap out of people for no apparent reason. The most realistic example I've ever seen of this was in the film Salton Sea where Val Kilmer goes to buy crystal from the guy "bobby who has the spear gun". That's pretty much what happens on one extreme. Quotes from that interaction include; "Excuse me. I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean." and "Did you bring the plastic men?" all while waving a spear gun around and keeping his wife and child captive.
  
  Even at lower non-chronic doses cocaine acts to remove all doubt and introspection. You want something and so you go get it. It makes you into a 70's Studio 54 hedonist, doing whatever feels good, no mater what or whom it hurts.

In short, free market arguements don't make sense with some drugs, because free markets require rational free flow of both the supply and the demand.

This is just an example. I'm sure every drug surely has it's own particulars. I've never known any heroin addicts, so I don't know the particulars. My point is that it would be a mistake to assume that the effects on society of some of these drugs would scale in a linear fashion from alcohol, tobacco, or marajuana. Even for those we apply different standards based on the effects. For instance, you can smoke a cigarette while driving but drinking a bottle of scotch is not OK.

In relation to some of the other issues discussed, some of them have poor track records as well. A close look at modern radical break-away Mormon sects which practice polygamy in southern Utah will yield quite a bit of evidence against the practice. A quick web search revealed this example where numerous unmarked baby graves were found outside one of these "sect towns". I've also seen reports of kids getting kicked out of town at 17 or 18 because births are still about 51% women and 49% men. When you combine this with the necessity for 4 or 5 women per man in traditional polygamous relationships, you suddenly have insane competitive pressures among the established male patriarchs.

My point is that many of these "victimless crimes" actually do have hidden victims and often come with a cost attached to society in general. I think in general one should be particularly careful to calculate the secondary and tertiary costs on decriminalization of these behaviors and make a rational judgment against the perceived benefit.