Consensual Crimes

what do you guys think of consensual crimes? consensual crimes are 'crimes' that hurt no one but the person or property of the person committing it.

in other words, if a man were to pick up a prostitute, they've made a deal between each other. he'll give her cash, for her body; it's a 'consensual crime'. i feel that using laws to regulate morality is stupid.

Peter McWilliams wrote the book on consensual crimes (literally). i want to know what you guys all think.

[Kraven de Sade]

You used prostitution as an example, but I think it's not a good one. While at first it may have been to regulate morality, but these days it's more of a health risk concern. Many prostitutes carry diseases, and as such it's easy for them to spread them.

yes, but whose concern is your health? the government's, or yours? do you think someone should go to jail for their stupid decision?

here, let me ask you this: what if brothels were setup, and all the prostitutes were tested daily, as well as all the clients before-hand? would it be all right then?

[Kraven de Sade]

It wouldn't be just my health. It would be the health of everyone I have sex with afterwards, as well as everyone the prostitute has sex with afterwards. Not to mention everyone that has sex with everyone the prostitute has had sex with afterwards. You see, that can lead up to a lot of people very quickly. That's why they're called public health concerns.

As for brothels, that's fine, but one can't force every prostitute to work out of one, so the health concern is still there.

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

It wouldn't be just my health. It would be the health of everyone I have sex with afterwards, as well as everyone the prostitute has sex with afterwards. Not to mention everyone that has sex with everyone the prostitute has had sex with afterwards. You see, that can lead up to a lot of people very quickly. That's why they're called public health concerns.

As for brothels, that's fine, but one can't force every prostitute to work out of one, so the health concern is still there.

i don't mean to be mean, but that's total nonsense. it's your responsibility, not the government's to protect you from yourself. what about people who get it from blood-transfusions? the risk is there; should we not let people take blood-transfusions because there is a risk? gambling is a consensual crime as well.

you really think that people should be processed by the law for their own decisions? for a decision that only hurts them? people can choose to not sleep with that person. people can tell them to go get tested before they have sex. people can do all of these things. the government shouldn't have to hold your hand.

when you break up with someone you may cause them to kill themselves, or go into a deep depression that they might not come out of in time to save the rest of their life. should you go to jail for their inability to recover?

you might get a cold, and cough on someone and get them sick and they die. should you go to jail for it? let's be reasonable here.

people are taking a risk when they sleep with a prostitute. people are also taking a risk when they sleep with a person who has slept with a prostitute. people are always taking risks doing everything and anything they do. these things should not be regulated, but rather be made aware of, without ridiculous superstition and propaganda.


last point:

then people can choose to sleep with prostitutes who only remain in brothels. if someone is stupid enough not to, then that is their concern. they consented to the act, and they got hurt because of it. as long as there is no fraud there, then it is your own fault.

[CLV]

I'm with Bloopie on that one.

What about euthanasia? It's a pretty common debate.

Or...what if I decide I don't want my legs/penis/breasts anymore AND I want them amputated and given to my friend who would quite like to eat them?

Originally Posted by CLV

I'm with Bloopie on that one.

What about euthanasia? It's a pretty common debate.

Or...what if I decide I don't want my legs/penis/breasts anymore AND I want them amputated and given to my friend who would quite like to eat them?

the former sounds like assisted suicide, right? i am a strong supporter of it.

the latter seems insane, but if both parties consented, i suppose i couldn't say anything about it. i think that it is totally vile and disgusting, but who am i to say about a person's beliefs?

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by Bloopie

i don't mean to be mean, but that's total nonsense. it's your responsibility, not the government's to protect you from yourself. what about people who get it from blood-transfusions? the risk is there; should we not let people take blood-transfusions because there is a risk? gambling is a consensual crime as well.

Getting a disease from a blood transfusion is far less than catching one from a prostitute. Far less. Not to mention that precautions are already taken to minimalize the chances of disease transmission. And I wasn't aware that gambling was a crime. Unless one is under 18, of course.

you really think that people should be processed by the law for their own decisions? for a decision that only hurts them? people can choose to not sleep with that person. people can tell them to go get tested before they have sex. people can do all of these things. the government shouldn't have to hold your hand.

That's the thing... catching and spreading diseases doesn't hurt just one person. And even the use of testing and protection isn't a 100% guarantee.

when you break up with someone you may cause them to kill themselves, or go into a deep depression that they might not come out of in time to save the rest of their life. should you go to jail for their inability to recover?

That's not even comparable.

you might get a cold, and cough on someone and get them sick and they die. should you go to jail for it? let's be reasonable here.

If you choose to, while sick, deliberatly cough on someone that you know has a weak immune system with the intention of getting them sick and killing them, then yes, you should go to jail. If you cough on someone by accident, then no. But then again, no one accidently goes to a prostitute.

people are taking a risk when they sleep with a prostitute. people are also taking a risk when they sleep with a person who has slept with a prostitute. people are always taking risks doing everything and anything they do. these things should not be regulated, but rather be made aware of, without ridiculous superstition and propaganda.

Awareness campaigns are a method of indirect regulation. And who do you think pays for many of the awareness campaigns? The government, and government-sponsored programs.

last point:

then people can choose to sleep with prostitutes who only remain in brothels. if someone is stupid enough not to, then that is their concern. they consented to the act, and they got hurt because of it. as long as there is no fraud there, then it is your own fault.

Your own fault that you got a disease? It's not the fault of whomever you got the disease from? Or the person that that person got the disease from?

Which brings me to my last point... Many prostitutes sell themselves even though they are aware that they have a disease. Many of them got diseases from having unprotected sex, and many continue to have unprotected sex. It is illegal to knowingly spread STDs. Cracking down on prostitution reduces the chance of spreading disease.

[Delicate_Torture]

People are stupid. That is why laws have been made and why Govts have been created. However, the problem exists that the Govts that govern the stupid people are now run BY stupid people who were voted into a position of power by the stupid people that they are meant to be governing.

That is why democracy sucks.

I vote for dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

Getting a disease from a blood transfusion is far less than catching one from a prostitute. Far less. Not to mention that precautions are already taken to minimalize the chances of disease transmission. And I wasn't aware that gambling was a crime. Unless one is under 18, of course.

gambling is a crime almost all over the united states. only in certain places is gambling fine. Las Vegas is one of those places.

That's the thing... catching and spreading diseases doesn't hurt just one person. And even the use of testing and protection isn't a 100% guarantee.

it isn't 100% guaranteed that you won't die the next time you get in a car either. should we ban cars? :\

That's not even comparable.

yes it is. ;\ what you are saying is, when our actions cause grief or pain in others, we should go to jail for it.

If you choose to, while sick, deliberatly cough on someone that you know has a weak immune system with the intention of getting them sick and killing them, then yes, you should go to jail. If you cough on someone by accident, then no. But then again, no one accidently goes to a prostitute.

yes, but it's a person's choice. the bill of right states that we have personal liberty. personal liberty includes the ability to destroy yourself if you wish to.

it is not the government's job to regulate your behavior, and it's not the government's job to regulate your health. the government can host campaigns about drug awareness, or prostitution awareness, or whatever else you want, but it should never under any circumstance put you in jail for a choice you've made.

Awareness campaigns are a method of indirect regulation. And who do you think pays for many of the awareness campaigns? The government, and government-sponsored programs.

they are not a method of regulation. they have alcohol awareness campaigns, but no one is going to jail for being so drunk their liver falls out. they have cigarette campaigns but no one is being put into jail for destroying their lungs are they? the reason why is because they cherry-pick what is good and what is bad. all people drink; all people smoke; therefore, it should be okay to do these things, right? wrong. they are obviously harmful, but they are legal. this is how everything else should be. cigarettes and alcohol actively kill you, and cigarettes can actively kill people who are around you. they are a huge risk that we as people are taking. we have to choice to kill ourselves however we choose. personal liberty.

Your own fault that you got a disease? It's not the fault of whomever you got the disease from? Or the person that that person got the disease from?

if they tricked you, then it's their fault. if you knew they had the disease and did it anyway, then it's your fault. if you didn't check if they got tested, then it's your fault again. so the only way it's their fault, is if they are lying.

Which brings me to my last point... Many prostitutes sell themselves even though they are aware that they have a disease. Many of them got diseases from having unprotected sex, and many continue to have unprotected sex. It is illegal to knowingly spread STDs. Cracking down on prostitution reduces the chance of spreading disease.

you can't regulate people's stupidity. if we legalized prostitution and setup brothels we could reduce the disease problem much faster than 'cracking down' on prostitutes. prostitution should not be illegal. it's the world's oldest profession. i don't see why it should be illegal at all. you are claiming that public health is the concern. you are lying. homosexuals have most of the stds, followed by drug users. prostitution is the least of our concerns. we should lock up homosexuals, and anyone suspect of homosexuality, right? wrong. we can't do that, because we should make people more aware of things, and not expect the government to hold our hand. personal liberty.

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

People are stupid. That is why laws have been made and why Govts have been created. However, the problem exists that the Govts that govern the stupid people are now run BY stupid people who were voted into a position of power by the stupid people that they are meant to be governing.

That is why democracy sucks.

I vote for dictatorship.

laws were made to govern intelligent people, and to be run by intelligent people. these laws were meant to provide us an ability to exist together in harmony and with liberty. at least American laws were.

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by Bloopie

gambling is a crime almost all over the united states. only in certain places is gambling fine. Las Vegas is one of those places.

As far as I'm aware, every single state has a state lottery and state-sanctioned scratch tickets that a person can purchase at any convenience store and any super market. And probably at other places, as well. That's a form of gambling. And it's not illegal.

it isn't 100% guaranteed that you won't die the next time you get in a car either. should we ban cars? :\

Again, that's not comparable.

yes it is. ;\ what you are saying is, when our actions cause grief or pain in others, we should go to jail for it.

Add the word "intentionally" between "actions" and "cause," then you'd be closer to the mark.

yes, but it's a person's choice. the bill of right states that we have personal liberty. personal liberty includes the ability to destroy yourself if you wish to.

But not others, which is what prostitution often does.

it is not the government's job to regulate your behavior, and it's not the government's job to regulate your health. the government can host campaigns about drug awareness, or prostitution awareness, or whatever else you want, but it should never under any circumstance put you in jail for a choice you've made.

Okay, then. I choose to kill my neighbor...

they are not a method of regulation. they have alcohol awareness campaigns, but no one is going to jail for being so drunk their liver falls out. they have cigarette campaigns but no one is being put into jail for destroying their lungs are they? the reason why is because they cherry-pick what is good and what is bad. all people drink; all people smoke; therefore, it should be okay to do these things, right? wrong. they are obviously harmful, but they are legal. this is how everything else should be. cigarettes and alcohol actively kill you, and cigarettes can actively kill people who are around you. they are a huge risk that we as people are taking. we have to choice to kill ourselves however we choose. personal liberty.

Drinking and smoking are solo activities. Sure, you can have a drink or a smoke with other people, but other people aren't required. When it comes to prostitution, two (or more) people are required.

if they tricked you, then it's their fault. if you knew they had the disease and did it anyway, then it's your fault. if you didn't check if they got tested, then it's your fault again. so the only way it's their fault, is if they are lying.

Honestly, how many people go to a prostitute knowing that the prostitute has a disease? And how many prostitutes are honest about any disease they carry?

you can't regulate people's stupidity. if we legalized prostitution and setup brothels we could reduce the disease problem much faster than 'cracking down' on prostitutes. prostitution should not be illegal. it's the world's oldest profession. i don't see why it should be illegal at all. you are claiming that public health is the concern. you are lying. homosexuals have most of the stds, followed by drug users. prostitution is the least of our concerns. we should lock up homosexuals, and anyone suspect of homosexuality, right? wrong. we can't do that, because we should make people more aware of things, and not expect the government to hold our hand. personal liberty.

And how many of those homosexuals are prostitutes? How many of those drug users sells themselves in order to buy drugs?

Seriously, if you're going to call someone a liar, you should know what the hell you're talking about. Also, the whole whole "gays and junkies have more STDs" bit is just a red herring. I didn't say that prostitution was Public Health Concern Number One. I said that it was a health concern.

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

As far as I'm aware, every single state has a state lottery and state-sanctioned scratch tickets that a person can purchase at any convenience store and any super market. And probably at other places, as well. That's a form of gambling. And it's not illegal.

that's one form of it. why are others illegal? it's arbitrary.

Again, that's not comparable.

it is comparable. it's called personal liberty. you choose to get into the car; you take a risk as a result. just because you don't like your logic doesn't mean you can flip-flop on me. ;\

Add the word "intentionally" between "actions" and "cause," then you'd be closer to the mark.

no; you are saying something completely different.

But not others, which is what prostitution often does.

does the act of prostitution by itself destroy anyone? no. people are taking a risk when they go with a prostitute. there are many risks involved. if a person takes that risk and as a result they harm another, then yes put them in jail. why put them in jail over the act itself? that seems foolish.

Okay, then. I choose to kill my neighbor...

then you go to jail. you still had a choice. but your choice contradicted what your neighbor wanted. unless it was assisted suicide.

my thesis was this if you missed it: you shouldn't be put in jail for anything that you consent to that only damages you, or your property. drinking and driving is an incredibly high-risk thing. things that are incredibly high-risk towards others should be illegal. if i went out and got a prostitute and contracted and std as a result, then it's my own fault. if i found out i had contracted it, then continued to have unprotected sex with other women, then i am at fault, because i've deceived someone.

Drinking and smoking are solo activities. Sure, you can have a drink or a smoke with other people, but other people aren't required. When it comes to prostitution, two (or more) people are required.

two consenting people are involved. two people have consented to have sex for a fee, and that's all there is to it. just as you consent to smoke a cigarette, or drink. you consent with yourself to do such. just as two people can consent to marry, party, dance, kiss, play a game, etc.

Honestly, how many people go to a prostitute knowing that the prostitute has a disease? And how many prostitutes are honest about any disease they carry?

does it really matter? those people should go to jail if they know they have a disease. you're running away from the problem. women who give these men diseases knowingly, should be in jail. prostitutes who have no idea cannot be held liable. they didn't know anymore than the client did.

this is where education and pushing to get tested comes in. we must insure that people are educated about all risks they take before they take them. we mustn't tell them not to take those risks.

you do recall the prohibition right? that's a fine example of why consensual crimes should not be illegal.

50% of our prisons are filled with people who committed consensual crimes. murderers/sexual offenders/thieves etc., are being let free because we need to put people who sold pot in prison 25 to life, and as a result let out Joey the kid toucher. it's utterly stupid.

And how many of those homosexuals are prostitutes? How many of those drug users sells themselves in order to buy drugs?

bad logic. i was showing how your logic is flawed. most of the people with stds are homosexuals and drug users. homosexuals are doing nothing illegal, but they carry the most stds out of all of the people in the united states. the reason is because the anus has a very thin membrane and readily accepts these diseases. so should we lock up every homosexual with the prostitutes and drug users? of course we shouldn't. that's totally wrong. but if these people know they have these diseases, they must be honest with the person they are sleeping with. they then can decide to consent to the sex or not. they then can take that risk. if they fail, they fail.

Seriously, if you're going to call someone a liar, you should know what the hell you're talking about. Also, the whole whole "gays and junkies have more STDs" bit is just a red herring. I didn't say that prostitution was Public Health Concern Number One. I said that it was a health concern.

red herring nothing. it was showing how your logic is twisted. it doesn't matter if every prostitute on earth had an std. as long as the prostitute is honest, and tells the client that they have an std (if they know they do) and the client takes the risk, then what the hell? they would have taken the risk with a regular woman. why should prostitutes suffer for others' stupidity?

you are only concentrating on one 'consensual crime.' what about marijuana, or bigamy? what about adultery?

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Bloopie

laws were made to govern intelligent people, and to be run by intelligent people. these laws were meant to provide us an ability to exist together in harmony and with liberty. at least American laws were.

That seriously made me laugh. Sure, laws were made to govern intelligent people. If people were intelligent, we wouldn't need laws! Do'h!

Originally Posted by Delicate_torture

I vote for dictatorship.

So you use democratic ways to promote dictatorship?

I agree with you, though, if only the leader wasn't corrupt. Too bad power corrupts. Only a dictator who would live like one of the people would be able to see the peoples needs... Or something like that.

*sigh* If only people were smart, we could have anarchy!

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

That seriously made me laugh. Sure, laws were made to govern intelligent people. If people were intelligent, we wouldn't need laws! Do'h!

;\ stupid people cannot function in society obviously. laws are created to govern the intelligent, and to punish the stupid. that's what i meant. i hope you get it now.

So you use democratic ways to promote dictatorship?

I agree with you, though, if only the leader wasn't corrupt. Too bad power corrupts. Only a dictator who would live like one of the people would be able to see the peoples needs... Or something like that.

*sigh* If only people were smart, we could have anarchy!

are you serious? anarchy is the worst form of anything. i don't want to live in a Hobbes like world.

[Kraven de Sade]

Fine, let's talk about other things.

Marijuana: I see nothing wrong with it. Sure, some people say, "Well, one joint will do more damage to your lungs than a pack of cigarettes." First off, no, not really. Secondly, smoking marijuana is only one method of use. Like cooking it into food, or making a tea out of it. And there are almost no risks from those methods.

Other harder drugs, though, should remain illegal. Cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth, for example. It's bad enough that they use those drugs, but then there's the fact that there's a lot of crime involved with those drugs. Like breaking into homes, or robbing/killing someone else for drug money. Those are clear and present dangers to our society. (And I honestly don't see how anyone can lump marijuana with these drugs.)

Bigamy: I've never heard of anyone actually being charged with bigamy. Usually the second marriage is just nullified.

Adultery: Adultery is often a violation of the marriage contract, which is a legally binding document. (When employed.) In this case, it has nothing to do with personal liberty at all, but the the honoring of a legal contract, and that's a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

Fine, let's talk about other things.

Marijuana: I see nothing wrong with it. Sure, some people say, "Well, one joint will do more damage to your lungs than a pack of cigarettes." First off, no, not really. Secondly, smoking marijuana is only one method of use. Like cooking it into food, or making a tea out of it. And there are almost no risks from those methods.

Precisely.

Other harder drugs, though, should remain illegal. Cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth, for example. It's bad enough that they use those drugs, but then there's the fact that there's a lot of crime involved with those drugs. Like breaking into homes, or robbing/killing someone else for drug money. Those are clear and present dangers to our society. (And I honestly don't see how anyone can lump marijuana with these drugs.)

if they were legal, do you think people would have to go to such extremes for it? you do realize that Holland has no laws on their drugs and they have very low crime rates (much lower than ours). why is that? can you explain your theory?

Bigamy: I've never heard of anyone actually being charged with bigamy. Usually the second marriage is just nullified.

why can't someone have two marriages if they want to?

Adultery: Adultery is often a violation of the marriage contract, which is a legally binding document. (When employed.) In this case, it has nothing to do with personal liberty at all, but the the honoring of a legal contract, and that's a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

there are some places in America that still will put you in jail for adultery. you might want to check that out.

[CptSternn]

It comes down to right-wing moral police.

The conservative right don't like drugs, sex, or gambling because of religious beliefs. Tis why they ban them in countries where they get a foothold.

It has nothing to do with public safety - as pointed out protsitution is legal in half of Europe and in at least one state in America - Nevada.

Drug usage is the same. Even though only Holland has legal marijuana for sale, the rest of Europe pretty much turns a blind eye to it's usage. In most areas, like Ireland and britian, they merely give you a fine if your caught with any small amount - and thats if the officer is REALLY angry with you over something else. 99% of the time they walk past people in outside pubs rolling their own splifs and never even give ye a glance, as they don't really enforce that law unless your causing a problem. Much like the 'open container' laws in America, everyone here can carry a beer through the centre of town with no issues, unless your acting the bollix and then they might say something.

At the end of the day, it goes down to two main issue - first is the 'conservative Christian' views, which they use to sell the other tripe used to 'explain' the bans (like stopping disease, health issues, etc).

Secondly they then have the issue of money. Making things illegal funds the largest industry in America - the defence industry. They also make all those prisons. Lets also not forget the billions paid yearly in fees collected in courts for making said actions illegal. America currently has the most number of people worldwide as well as the highest number per capita (18%) of citizens in prison. That means almost 1-5 Americans are currently in prison - and 2/3rds of those are drug related offenses.

A funny side note on that - about two years ago most police departments in America as well as the FBI had shortages of qualified candidates - because they couldn't find persons who hadn't taken drugs. The FBI along with many police departments had to lower entry limitations to fix this, by letting in less educated, out of shape persons. This still didn't help, so they then relaxed drug usage restrictions. It speaks volumes about a society in where those who uphold the law cannot even say them themselves did not break the same laws before becoming a law enforcement officer and about the level of draconian laws in place.


It starts with morals and ends with money.

Thats the true American way.

[Drake Dun]

I fall out on the freedom-loving side of pretty much every issue, including this one. Prostitution in and of itself does not directly harm anybody. I think we can all agree on that.

The question is where we choose to cut off responsibility. The truth, of course, is that the things we do have effects, both direct and indirect. Regulating behaviors which are not "immoral" (let's read that as meaning directly harmful to other humans) can be effective for controlling social phenomena, such as the spread of disease.

This is the principle behind the apparently arbitrary illegalization of some drugs and continued legality of others. Pot is illegal not because it is dangerous to the user, but because it makes him lazy and then "we have to support him". Nicotine and alcohol, by contrast, are much more dangerous to the health of the user - but they serve as escapes from the stress and angst attendant upon the life of a wage slave or cubicle whore. Therefore they help him get back up the next morning to go defile himself before his employer and continue spinning the hamster wheel. Hence they remain legal.

If we make no distinction in terms of directness of causality, we have a blank check to regulate any and every human activity. However, as attractive as the idea of controlling disease is, nobody with even a single freedom-loving bone in his body can endorse this approach. A benign totalitarianism is still totalitarianism.

So where do we cut off responsibility? That's a tough one, but a good bright line that most people who value freedom are attracted to is that the intentional act itself must be reasonably expectable to produce direct harm. An interceding act of independant agency will break the chain.

Applying these principles to the case at hand, we do not have a basis for illegalizing prostitution. There is no direct harm caused to anybody by the simple act of prostitution. End of analysis.

To descend into a more mainstream consequentialist line of inquiry, it is far from clear that legalizing prostitution would result in more spread of disease. On the contrary, prostitution has all the signs of being one of those institutions which has terrible consequences because it is illegal, much like the drug underground.

People steal and kill over drugs because their prices are artificially high due to government control. You notice that nobody kills anybody over alcohol or nicotine, even though both of these are highly addictive. Yet they were indeed killing each other over alcohol during the short time it was illegal. We still have two extremely dangerous violent organizations, one of which came into being essentially because of prohibition, and the other of which was catapulted from obscurity to prominence by it (the FBI and the American Mafia, respectively). Prostitution may well be like abortion... dirty and dangerous when illegal, relatively harmless when legal.

Finally, regarding laws, people, and anarchy. There is a dangerous tendency in Western political philosophy to indulge surreal fantasies of "original contracting parties" and "founding principles". The simple historical fact is that all existing governments owe their origins to bloody-handed conquerors, not wig-sporting quill-flourishers. We would do well not to forget that. The fact that our present forms of government do not paralell their historical counterparts in terms of sheer brutality is due to exclusively to the occasional pains of assorted revolutionaries, civil rights activists, and dissidents of various stripe.

Any utopian society, if such a thing there may ever be, would be anarchist. The best it would be possible to say of government in such a society would be that it is wasteful and unnecessary.

Drake

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

It comes down to right-wing moral police.

The conservative right don't like drugs, sex, or gambling because of religious beliefs. Tis why they ban them in countries where they get a foothold.

What constitutes a ban with you? If drugs, sex, and gambling were banned in the US, they wouldn't be allowed, period. Yet there are extremely lenient drug laws (for some drugs) in several states, legal prostitution in Vegas, and state-run lotteries in every state of the Union. Hardly a ban.

It has nothing to do with public safety - as pointed out protsitution is legal in half of Europe and in at least one state in America - Nevada.

Bloopie pointed out Holland. Holland hardly constitutes half of Europe.

Drug usage is the same. Even though only Holland has legal marijuana for sale, the rest of Europe pretty much turns a blind eye to it's usage. In most areas, like Ireland and britian, they merely give you a fine if your caught with any small amount - and thats if the officer is REALLY angry with you over something else. 99% of the time they walk past people in outside pubs rolling their own splifs and never even give ye a glance, as they don't really enforce that law unless your causing a problem. Much like the 'open container' laws in America, everyone here can carry a beer through the centre of town with no issues, unless your acting the bollix and then they might say something.

As far as blind eyes on marijuana is concerned, that's true in several states of the Union. California, though considered by many to be a police state, is extremely lenient on marijuana use. I mean, when two people get caught with weed, one gets a $15 fine because he's smoking it, and the other gets nothing because he's not holding it, that's hardly comparable to strict drug laws.

At the end of the day, it goes down to two main issue - first is the 'conservative Christian' views, which they use to sell the other tripe used to 'explain' the bans (like stopping disease, health issues, etc).

Actually, the Christian Right got those ideas from others who were more interrested in the public welfare rather than pushing morals.

Secondly they then have the issue of money. Making things illegal funds the largest industry in America - the defence industry. They also make all those prisons. Lets also not forget the billions paid yearly in fees collected in courts for making said actions illegal. America currently has the most number of people worldwide as well as the highest number per capita (18%) of citizens in prison. That means almost 1-5 Americans are currently in prison - and 2/3rds of those are drug related offenses.

I don't get that at all. Letting those things be legal opens them up to being taxable, and income through taxes from those thing would outweigh how much they spend to make them illegal, as well as elliminating the need to get their funds from other taxes.

A funny side note on that - about two years ago most police departments in America as well as the FBI had shortages of qualified candidates - because they couldn't find persons who hadn't taken drugs. The FBI along with many police departments had to lower entry limitations to fix this, by letting in less educated, out of shape persons. This still didn't help, so they then relaxed drug usage restrictions. It speaks volumes about a society in where those who uphold the law cannot even say them themselves did not break the same laws before becoming a law enforcement officer and about the level of draconian laws in place.

There is a such thing as "too far."

It starts with morals and ends with money.

Thats the true American way.

Nope. It starts with the citizen, and ends with the citizen's wallet. Close, but not quite.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

I don't get that at all. Letting those things be legal opens them up to being taxable, and income through taxes from those thing would outweigh how much they spend to make them illegal, as well as elliminating the need to get their funds from other taxes.

The U.S. is not a person, and it does not have interests that it balances against each other. It is a country, which is run by people who have interests that get balanced against one another.

You will hear the same line of reasoning with regard to Iraq. It goes something like this: It's absurd to say that the United States is in Iraq for the oil, because the amount of money we have spent on the conquest is much greater than the amount we will make on the oil.

The gimick here is the "we", which does not exist. You have to look at who is doing the paying (the taxpayers) and who is doing the profiting (a short list of specific business entities). Then it all starts to make sense. The same is true of the war on drugs.

Drake

[Kraven de Sade]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The U.S. is not a person, and it does not have interests that it balances against each other. It is a country, which is run by people who have interests that get balanced against one another.

You will hear the same line of reasoning with regard to Iraq. It goes something like this: It's absurd to say that the United States is in Iraq for the oil, because the amount of money we have spent on the conquest is much greater than the amount we will make on the oil.

The gimick here is the "we", which does not exist. You have to look at who is doing the paying (the taxpayers) and who is doing the profiting (a short list of specific business entities). Then it all starts to make sense. The same is true of the war on drugs.

Drake

I'm aware of that, but it still doesn't make sense. We're supposed to be a nation "of the people, by the people," not "of the many, for the few." That's why I point and laugh when people try to justify such rubbish, as they don't understand (whether through stupididty or through willful ignorance) what that means.

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by Bloopie

what do you guys think of consensual crimes? consensual crimes are 'crimes' that hurt no one but the person or property of the person committing it.

in other words, if a man were to pick up a prostitute, they've made a deal between each other. he'll give her cash, for her body; it's a 'consensual crime'. i feel that using laws to regulate morality is stupid.

Peter McWilliams wrote the book on consensual crimes (literally). i want to know what you guys all think.

A crime may be consensual, in that consent was given to commit the act... but this doesn't mean that noone is harmed by that crime. There is ALWAYS a victim of a crime, even if it isn't immediately apparent... someone always suffers. It could even be the person who commits the act.

People need their ethical values protected in the same way that they need their physical bodies protected from danger.

sir, tell me what the bill of right says? tell me the first amendment. i am curious as to what it says.

because alcohol leads to many deaths, and hurts us far more than marijuana, yet we still have it. As someone pointed out, the religious right create our laws which coincide with their morals. there is never a victim in a consensual crime. just because someone suffers does not mean we should be protected from it. sometimes we benefit, but life is full of risks, and it's up to an individual to decide which risks are worth taking.

personal liberty.

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

I'm aware of that, but it still doesn't make sense. We're supposed to be a nation "of the people, by the people," not "of the many, for the few." That's why I point and laugh when people try to justify such rubbish, as they don't understand (whether through stupididty or through willful ignorance) what that means.

we are a nation of the people by the people. when this nation was created, we also have unalienable rights. one of those rights is personal liberty. i think that even if something is totally immoral we shouldn't put laws against it. we should setup counseling, and awareness for it, but not laws. no one should go to jail for gambling, or prostitution.