Victimless Crimes = Morals Police = Primitive Democracy?

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

HandsRaised
Student
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:49 pm

Victimless Crimes = Morals Police = Primitive Democracy?

Post #1

Post by HandsRaised »

Literally millions of American's public reputations have been tarnished -- for life -- for "morals crimes" like drugs, gambling and prostitution. No victims or damages are needed to mar your life forever here -- just failing to agree with the prevailing morality will get you in trouble in America -- just like in Saudia Arabia with their "Morals Police".

Do you see the problem here? We're using our public secular institutions to impose moral laws on citizens -- even where no public interest can be shown. We're legislating morality. That's cool I guess -- if you happen to agree with those morals -- but what if you don't. Death awaits anyone denouncing the prophet Mohamed (PBUH) in Saudia Arabia. We're only a little better for imprisioning citizens for self medicating -- or for helping others do the same.

The moral issue here is simply, is it fair to impose "morality" on others -- even when nobody else is directly affected by "immoral" behaviors? Civil Rights surely includes the freedom to be "immoral" -- even if everyone else knows it's really a longterm mistake. God certainly seems to understand and forgive -- but not Civil Societies?

I envision a "28th Amendment" -- to abolish "Victimless Crimes". Let us make our own mistakes without public humiliation -- as an ultimate teacher on our journey to God.

User avatar
Lux
Site Supporter
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Post #11

Post by Lux »

Goat wrote:I suspect if Pot were legal, then some of the other drugs that people resort to won't be as attractive. Pot has it's drawbacks too... it certainly can reduce people's motivation.
I suspect it too. Pot does have it's bad effects, but I don't think it's even close to harmful enough to keep it outlawed. The only reason to do it is moral, and government officials claiming their concern is safety are hypocrites. Tobacco is at least as harmful if not way more, and they'll never move a finger to outlaw it, be it because tobacco companies are too powerful or because they contribute too many taxes to mess with them.
[center]Image

© Divine Insight (Thanks!)[/center]



"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith." -Phil Plate.

cnorman18

Post #12

Post by cnorman18 »

Jrosemary wrote:
CNorman wrote:Same with prostitution. Whether you're in the business or a patron, if you pick up a disease, you get nothing from the free clinic and nothing from the county hospital. Zero. Buy your own penicillin, or drop dead -- literally. It's not our problem.
I couldn't tell how seriously you meant your post, but I very much disagree with you. If we were to legalize prostitution, I think our strategy should be to regulate it and zone it. Prostitutes should pay income taxes like everyone else--and should be entitled to all the benefits that come from those taxes. Regulations should include disease-preventing measures, and every prostitute should be able to bring charges against clients who abuse them.
I'm okay with that too. The position I have a problem with is the one that says we should just repeal all the laws against "victimless crimes" and leave them entirely unregulated. I say, fine; but then the people who do them are entirely on their own. If the claim is that the rest of us are unaffected, then the rest of us should be unaffected.
CNorman wrote:If you choose to indulge in alcohol or other drugs, and thereby destroy your health, you won't go to jail; but you get no free Government-paid medical care, no welfare, no unemployment benefits, no ADC assistance for your kids, nothing. Not a damn dime, not for you or for any other member of your family that is affected.
I disagree here too. I'd never punish a child for her parents' mistakes. Granted, I'm not sure how I feel about legalizing currently illegal drugs--although I've heard some good arguments for it--but I think there's a better way to handle excesses than this. As you pointed out, we don't punish people for food excesses that also cost our nation money.
You deleted the rest of what I said. The family can get any kind of assistance they need -- but only if the addict or alcoholic is completely cut off from that aid.

We don't have laws against overeating, so no one's talking about repealing any. The issue here is about repealing laws that are already in place, which (according to some) represent moral standards that society has no right to impose. My position is, Okay: if you want to leave those standards behind, don't expect help from the society you are bravely defying. That's like the 16-year-old who wants to drive and hang with his friends and party and go clubbing, but expects his parents to pay for the car, the gas, the insurance, the movies and CDs and the clubs and the cool clothes.

cnorman18

Post #13

Post by cnorman18 »

Lux wrote:
Goat wrote:I suspect if Pot were legal, then some of the other drugs that people resort to won't be as attractive. Pot has it's drawbacks too... it certainly can reduce people's motivation.
I suspect it too. Pot does have it's bad effects, but I don't think it's even close to harmful enough to keep it outlawed. The only reason to do it is moral, and government officials claiming their concern is safety are hypocrites. Tobacco is at least as harmful if not way more, and they'll never move a finger to outlaw it, be it because tobacco companies are too powerful or because they contribute too many taxes to mess with them.
I don't think pot is harmless, but I'm in favor of legalization for the same reason that I'm against prohibiting either tobacco or alcohol. The illegality of it places it in the hands of criminals and keeps it AWAY from regulation. Outlaw tobacco, and you'll have a huge and dangerous black market tomorrow; in a year you'll have cigarette gangs having shootouts to determine who can sell the cigarettes (unregulated -- made with floor sweepings and old butts and dead bugs and animal hair and possibly heroin in them) in their neighborhoods.

We have that with pot NOW. I live in Texas. The cartels are coming over the border and killing Americans NOW. I'd rather see it sold at the 7-Eleven than see families get murdered at some girl's quinceineria party in El Paso -- or any MORE of them in Juarez. Mexico is out of control NOW, and it's because pot is illegal.

User avatar
Serpent Oracle
Scholar
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: UK

Re: Victimless Crimes = Morals Police = Primitive Democracy?

Post #14

Post by Serpent Oracle »

HandsRaised wrote: I envision a "28th Amendment" -- to abolish "Victimless Crimes". Let us make our own mistakes without public humiliation -- as an ultimate teacher on our journey to God.
I concur it is no one's business what people do in the privacy of their own homes, if they wish to pollute themselves with alcohol or cannabis or heroin, that is entirely in my view up to them...I have NO right to say what they are doing is morally reprehensible.
Indeed it would be hypocritical in extremis.

Prohibition is simply mindless, it solves nothing and costs a fortune in law enforcement and processing drug users through the judicial system.
Not only that but we ruin the long term prospects of drug users with criminal and prison records...we thereby increase unemployment and encourage criminal behavior by forcing people to act criminally.

As the poster above this post points out by driving drugs underground we lose all ability to regulate the drugs...there is no quality control...and of course no taxation ;)

Public
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: Victimless Crimes = Morals Police = Primitive Democracy?

Post #15

Post by Public »

Death for blasphemy is only a little worse than American anti-drug laws?
Even assuming those crimes were identical, is temporary incarceration only a little worse than death? Hmm...

My concern is that 'victimless crime' may seem like a common-sense concept, but you need to decide on your definition of 'victimhood'. If you define it as "someone who suffers as a result of an activity", then the children of alcoholics are victims, so alcoholism/drug addiction is a state issue. Is suicide a victimless crime? What about the family and community left behind? etc... If you define it differently, family members are not victims, etc... so what definition of victimhood are you proposing? If victim = 'harmed with malice", you ignore victims of negligence, etc... I basically agree with your proposition, but I think it would be difficult to iron out in law.

You are pushing for a public/private division that is hard to draw clearly. Addiction tends to spill over into the public domain. The relationship between alcoholism and domestic violence is clear, so to treat the symptoms but not the disease is already a moral decision by the state.

I agree with the legalization of pot because prohibition creates more problems than it solves, but not because it is 'victimless'. Maybe there are victims, maybe there aren't, but it being illegal guarantees drug cartels, dealers, etc... and they create lots of definite victims and suffering. We could eliminate that, and even if we assign a cost to drug use, it is hard to believe that it will be greater than the drug violence that the law implies.

Post Reply