Get Rid of ALL Vice Laws!!!

Legalize everything that doesn't involve a real victim:

All drugs
All gambling
Prostitution

Now. Immediately. Especially drugs, since I am absolutely mortified at the erosion of personal freedom in the name of the drug war.

Just thought I'd share that.



------------------
Stoidela

If all of those things were legalised, would you agree that regulations on them would be prudent? Such as AIDS testing for prostitutes, purity standards for the drugs?

Drugs? No victims? Ever been to a rehabilitation center? Obviously not.

Gambling? No victims? Ever talked to a compulsive gambler? Obviously not.

Prostitution? No victims? Ever spent a few hours with a prostitue? Obviously not.

Shouldn't this be in the Great Debates forum? As, for that matter, should be the men and abortion thread?

-Melin

------------------
I'm a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me
(Maya Angelou)

"Vicimless" is a perfectly accurate word to describe these crimes, inasmuch as the only POSSIBLE victim is the criminal him/herself. And even then it's somewhat rare for the criminal to be seriously harmed.

BIG IRON -- I dont' think the spouse/child/parent/friend of a drug addict (or a gambling addict) would say that the only victims of these addictions are the uses/gamblers. When a person has an addiction that he or she will neglect family obligations, drain bank accounts, and perhaps even commit crimes to support, the victims are many. It's like dropping a pebble into a pool -- you can't say that conequences are limited to the person with the habit.

conSequences -- damn!

Melin:

Well, people seem to end up getting pretty testy with each other, why not start here?

Big Iron: Right on.

Sly: Big Iron explained the obvious. If you choose to screw up your life, it ain't my job to prevent you. There's alot of perfectly legal things people do to destroy themselves and we don't have laws against them, nor should we.

But to answer your queries specifically:

Rehab center:
I have several sober friends who nearly destroyed themselves with drugs. The illegality of their drugs of choice in no way stopped, helped, or prevented this from happening. It just created another layer of shame and fear.

Gambling:

I was in love with and living with a compulsive gambler/drug addict (when he was clean of one, he was deep in the other, never free of both simultaneously). He disappeared to Vegas and lost our rent more than once. He ended up killing himself because he was such a mess and could see no way out. It certainly would have been easier in some respects if he hadn't had to leave town to indulge his habit.

Prostitution:

My stepmother is a prostitute. (Or was, she's now the president of a non-profit organization dedicated to presenting the art, culture and history of sex workers.) She was proud and happy to do the work. My father supported it completely. The only thing about it that ever bummed her out was when she was set up to be busted ona pandering charge and got railroaded into jail.

So it would seem that of the two of us, I have a more intimate experience with all these things than you do, and I STILL want them all legalized.



------------------
Stoidela

Uhmm .. seriously harmed? what the heck are you talking about?

Drugs can harm you physically ... not to mention mixing with the wrong people.

Drugs, Gambling and Prostitution can ruin marridges, in which i would say other people are affected, not just the "Criminal".

Sometimes i just wish people would "THINK" before they speak.

After your ridiculous position in the "Abortion for Men" debate, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I completely agree with you, Stoidela. Glad to see you are advocating personal responsibility. Yes, it should all be legalized and it should all be regulated. Wait--I take that back. I do not think that hard drugs should be legalized (heroin, cocaine). I think the risk to society outwieghs the benefits in that case. As for everything else, bring it on.
Quote from Sly:

"Drugs? No victims? Ever been to a rehabilitation center? Obviously not."

People keep rolling in to Betty Ford, too. There is a subset of the population which is always going to behave irresponsibly regardless of the law.

And again:

"Prostitution? No victims? Ever spent a few hours with a prostitue? "

The (legal) prostitutes in Amsterdam are much better off because of the legalization. They do not face half the problems of prostitites who work where it is illegal. I use Amsterdam as an example because I have been there many times. I would venture to guess that the situation would be the same in any place where prostitution is legal and well-regulated.

Last time:

"Gambling? No victims? Ever talked to a compulsive gambler?"

This is very similar to the drug example. Compulsive anything is bad. Some people have no self control. If we made illegal everything that SOME people can't control their impulses about, we would have to outlaw food, shopping, watching T.V. etc.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

I was about to add a pro-libertarian post to the Abortion for Ment thread, when I lost contact with the server. I come back and Stoidela beats my to it with a new thread.

The harm of a "benevolent", socialist leaning government is that, with its promises to solve social ills, it erodes personal responsibility. The government is going to fix the drug problem and prostitution and gambling by strictly regulating them. (Suggested topic: The lottery is good, but the Numbers are evil. Bigotry, greed or stupidity? )

Gambling never stopped, drugs never stopped and prostitution never stopped. And when they become a problem, it is not the addicts fault or responsibility. No it is the government's Responsibility. Quick, dump more tax dollars into jails, law enforcement and the courts!

Talk about victims! How much money is taken from the pockets of law abiding citizens and funneled into the war on these vices? Enough to qualify as grand larceny I bet. Count me as an innocent victim created by the prosecution of victimless crimes by the government.

Big Iron:

"Vicimless" is a perfectly accurate word to describe these crimes, inasmuch as the only POSSIBLE victim is the criminal him/herself. And even then it's somewhat rare for the criminal to be seriously harmed.

By your definition, then, is suicide a victimless crime? A "victim" in a broad sense is an invidiual who is adversely affected by a force or agent. In this sense, the crime itself is the force.

I can look for and post some statistics of lives ruined by these "victimless" crimes if you wish.

My earlier post was not intended to be construed as an argument *against* legalizing anything. It was simply to point out the misnomer of "victimless" crimes.

Hey, Stoidela, is your stepmother coming out to Butte, Montana, this August for the big sex-workers convention? You want to talk about a town divided -- whoa. You can imagine the editorials.

Can't believe people are arguing in this thread about the terminology "victimless." Sure, it's been overused and even misapplied, but that doesn't alter the point: for a crime to be a crime, there should be a "victim" who files a complaint against a perpetrator.

In the case of drugs, gambling, and prostitution, you have situations where no one is filing complaints, but the police go out and arrest people anyway.

And as far as the "harm" done by these activities--lots of things cause harm, but they aren't necessarily against the law. Nor does criminalizing them decrease the harm; in fact, oftentimes, just the opposite happens (as during prohibition, which increased rather than decreased alcoholism, and brought in the element of organized crime).

Besides, you have to measure the harm against the supposed cure. If somebody takes drugs, he might (a) eventually outgrow the habit, (b) go into rehab or (c) overdose. Making drugs illegal decreases the chances of (b) and increases the chances of (c). Moreover, it adds a fourth possibility: (d) go to prison where you can be beaten up, raped, possibly killed. This is hardly much of an improvement over the other possibilities. In fact, if drugs were legal and regulated, it might cut down on (c) quite a bit.

Okay, let's admit there is some potential harm in these activities. Nevertheless, undoing that harm is not a matter of bringing in the police. And if you dislike the term "victimless," then let's use "consensual crimes."

And as for Krells, you're right: people should think before they speak. Try it yourself next time. Yes, drugs, gambling, and prostitution can harm marriages, but should that be reason enough to make them illegal. Will prosecuting the "criminal" and putting him in jail save the marriage? Hardly. And should everything else that might harm a marriage be made illegal as well? How about mandatory prison terms for adultery? Maybe husbands and fathers should be outlawed from having dangerous jobs: after all, they might get killed at work and that would harm their families. And it should probably be illegal for them to have any interesting hobbies or outside activities, because that might deflect them from focusing on their home life, and thus again harm their families. They probably shouldn't fly on business trips either, because the plane might crash, causing their spouses and children to undergo the harm of losing a husband and father. Also, it should probably be illegal for them to undergo any kind of religious conversion--you never know, they might decide to take a vow of celibacy, become a monk, and leave their families bereft. And the list goes on...

Jodih:

Of course she is, she is the one who made it happen!!! And she's already there.

How did you know about it? Do you live there? (And the naysayers are quieting down...they will be drowned out completely after Butte gets flooded with $$$ in the wake of the bikers coming through!)



------------------
Stoidela

CFQ:

Oh man, you took all my words right outta my mouth!

kudos.



------------------
Stoidela

Yes, but if drugs were legal, what would teens do to rebel? Wear suits?

Gambling is illegal?? What about lotto? I really thought gambling was pretty much a-okay everywhere now except in a few areas where they're trying to screw the indians.

Well, prostitution is practiced legally in most states...oh wait, you're talking about sex acts. The only problem with making prostitution legal is too many people would assume that it includes children, especially their own. Some laws are good, after all.

But I have to agree that the War on Drugs has been one of the greatest failures in US domestic policy since prohibition. If nothing else, the tax revenue from making pot legal would pay for a lot of new... high ways. -- that was a joke, son, a joke I say!

I love vice laws. They're such a beautiful example of the conflict between society and individuality.

I live in southern New Hampshire, where we have State Liquor Stores open seven days a week. In Massachusetts, our neighbor to the south, blue laws prohibit sale of beer or liquor on Sunday... unless you are within 10 miles of the border with New Hampshire.

I just love the whole "This is illegal, except when it isn't" sliding gray scale that vice laws exemplify. They should be taught in Junior High Civics classes so that kids learn the difference between Right and right and Wrong and wrong.

If ALL vice laws were eliminated, then maybe the stigmatizing of sex would be cut to such a low level that prostitution itself would be greatly reduced. If sex becomes a normal part of society, instead of a great sin/vice to be persecuted, more people might be willing to engage in it without shame, FOR FREE, thus reducing the need for paid sex.
As far as vices that harm society, generally the vices that government can make a profit on are o.k., such as smoking, drinking, and gambling. The are taxable and (somewhat) easily regulated. The vices that involve sex, drugs, and the like are hard to control, hard to tax, and therefore "wrong".

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson

Lcuky:

I almost forgot:

Wait--I take that back. I do not think that hard drugs should be legalized (heroin, cocaine). I think the risk to society outwieghs the benefits in that case. As for everything else, bring it on.

Really? What risks to society do heroin and cocaine pose that are so much greater than criminals and ridiculously expensive penal systems?

I dont' know if it is Denmark, Swedne, the Netherlands, or some other country, but somewhere in Europe they are sanely and compassionately actually PROVIDING heroin to addicts. The result? Many of them are not only NOT committing crime and living on the street, they are actually productive members of society barely distinguishable from anyone else. (Once you reach a certain level of addiction with heroin, "getting high" isn't really the goal. Simply preventing the pain of withdrawal is.)

Considering that the #1 life-destroying drug in his country is alcohol, and the second is nictine, I find it hilarious that anyone could try to make a case that any other drug is a so great a danger to society that it should be outlawed. All illegal drugs combined do not come CLOSE to the damage and pain caused by alcohol.

There is no justification for any drug being illegal. None. (Including alcohol and nictotine, by the way. If people wanna destroy their lives, that's their business.)



------------------
Stoidela

{{BIG IRON -- I dont' think the spouse/child/parent/friend of a drug addict (or a gambling addict) would say that the only victims of these addictions are the uses/gamblers. When a person has an addiction that he or she will neglect family obligations, drain bank accounts, and perhaps even commit crimes to support, the victims are many. It's like dropping a pebble into a pool -- you can't say that conequences are limited to the person with the habit. }}

Y'know, I considered that an then blew it off on the theory that negligence in parental and similar duties is a separate offense, regardless of the cause.

<< --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vicimless" is a perfectly accurate word to describe these crimes, inasmuch as the only POSSIBLE victim is the criminal him/herself. And even then it's somewhat rare for the criminal to be seriously harmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By your definition, then, is suicide a victimless crime? A "victim" in a broad sense is an invidiual who is adversely affected by a force or agent. In this sense, the crime itself is the force.

I can look for and post some statistics of lives ruined by these "victimless" crimes if you wish.

My earlier post was not intended to be construed as an argument *against* legalizing anything. It was simply to point out the misnomer of "victimless" crimes. >> Sly

Let's put it this way -- as they're written they sure don't require any victim.

There is, obviously, an extent to which society itself is the victim of certain crimes, insofar as a majority of citizens prefer that certain activities not be legal. You'll note that in criminal cases like, say, murder, the case is not "the family of victim X vs, defendant Y"; it is "the people vs. defendant Y."

If you want to change the laws, change the opinions of the people.

I cannot comment on gambling, I can go gamble if I want to, (which is very seldom) so for me that is not illegal. I still do not know where to stand on legalizing drugs, to be more specific using a slang term, weed. I agree with Egospark that if the government put a hefty sales tax on it, we could make a scratch on the deficit. But the downside is regulation... would you put up with someone smoking a joint during your dinner at your favorite restaurant? Not me. Or if they confine use to in the home, how would they enforce that effectively? There is a good side and a bad side... maybe they should legalize it in a county or a state and see how well it works first. Its sort of the same debate over prostitution... it is against the law to have sex without revealing you have AIDS, that is along the lines of giving someone a drink without telling them you poisoned it. Who would regulate and test the prostitutes and enforce that they be tested? Would they make legal "brothels" for you to go to? Would every prospective john have to be tested beforehand? Who knows exactly what would happen if these vices were made legal.

I still do not know where to stand on legalizing drugs, to be more specific using a slang term, weed. I agree with Egospark that if the government put a hefty sales tax on it, we could make a scratch on the deficit.

I'm realy not sure what planet some of you people live on, but first off, you seriously underestimate the size of the deficit. That scratch wouldn't even be atom-sized. Christ, look at how heavily cigarettes are taxed, and how many people smoke, and that has no effect on the deficit at all. Especially since much of it is just channeled back through crop subsidies and insurance.

Second, you do all realize that taxing a activity heavily causes fewer people to participate, right? That's the concept behind taxes some activities prohibitively, to the point where the cost outweighs any possible utility. So, such taxation would be counterproductive except in advancing the goal of lowering marijuana use.

Stoidela:

I dont' know if it is Denmark, Swedne, the Netherlands, or some other country, but somewhere in Europe they are sanely and compassionately actually PROVIDING heroin to addicts. The result? Many of them are not only NOT committing crime and living on the street, they are actually productive members of society barely distinguishable from anyone else.

Can you please provide a cite for this? Have you ever seen or known a heroin addict?

Big Iron:

If you want to change the laws, change the opinions of the people.

Well, first of all, an enormous number of people share this opinion. Including seemingly unlikely folk like William F. Buckley.

Secondly, the beauty of our democracy is that it is not designed to bend to the will of the people, but to make sure that we are free and equal under the law, whether "the people" like it or not. It is certainly imprefect in its application, but that was the original design.

It is my contention that vice laws fly in the face of our freedom by dictating to us what we can do in our private lives, by telling us that our private behavior, which hurts no one else, is a crime. And that is insane on the face of it, but even more insidiously, it gives the government a handy excuse for chipping away at our constituionally protected freedoms. And why this doesn't bother more people is a constant source of wonder to me.

Neobican:

Who would regulate and test the prostitutes and enforce that they be tested? Would they make legal "brothels" for you to go to? Would every prospective john have to be tested beforehand? Who knows exactly what would happen if these vices were made legal.

You speak as though the vice laws were in place everywhere. it's no mystery what would happen if vice laws were disposed of. Prostitution is legal in most of Nevada and a number of other countries. What happens? Everybody is safer and healthier. Drugs are legal or very nearly in a number of other countries. What happens? Everybody is safer and happier. Gambling is legal to some extent in alot of states, but most completely in Nevada. What happens? Everybody except the casino owners is a little poorer.

PLDennison:

Can you please provide a cite for this? Have you ever seen or known a heroin addict?

Absolutely, have you? (My little sister is a junkie.) And what is your point in asking?

As for the cite, I've read about it a number of times, but there was also a segment on 60 Minutes a year or two ago. Sorry I can't be more specific, I didn't expect to be debating it with you today.



------------------
Stoidela

Stoidela brings up a very important point that the current government is violating our freedoms. The one that really bothers me is property tax. Correct me if I am wrong, but the right to own property was a fundamental right. Yet I must pay taxes to the governmetn to keep my property. If I don't they seize the property and auction it off. In essence, I am simply renting the government's property from them.

The Government has overstepped its boundaries and eroded our individual freedoms. I do not use drugs, but let's say I get accused of selling drugs and the government decides to prosecute. They can use this vice law to annex and keep my property...all of my property including cash assets.

When put together it starts to sound more like the aristocracy taking what they please. And we have gotten to this point because many voters have traded their freedoms for safety. Legal drugs may be less safe, but I will trade the safety for the freedom.

Maybe that is the fundamental debate. What is more important, a safe society, or a free one, or a reasonable compromise?

Thor:

The Government has overstepped its boundaries and eroded our individual freedoms. I do not use drugs, but let's say I get accused of selling drugs and the government decides to prosecute. They can use this vice law to annex and keep my property...all of my property including cash assets.

I believe we have reached a point now where they dont' even have to prosecute you, much less win. All they have to do is accuse you.

It a travesty, and I'm deeply disturbed.

------------------
Stoidela

Big Iron:

Nope, 'twas me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to change the laws, change the opinions of the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, first of all, an enormous number of people share this opinion. Including seemingly unlikely folk like William F. Buckley.

Appealing to authority isn't going to convince anybody, and I question your use of the word "enormous." If that many people felt that strongly about it, it would already be legal.

Secondly, the beauty of our democracy is that it is not designed to bend to the will of the people, but to make sure that we are free and equal under the law, whether "the people" like it or not.

It is also designed to see that the greatest number of people get what they want. Obviously, the greatest number of people do not want legalized heroin use.

The one that really bothers me is property tax. Correct me if I am wrong, but the right to own property was a fundamental right. Yet I must pay taxes to the governmetn to keep my property. If I don't they seize the property and auction it off. In essence, I am simply renting the government's property from them.

No, you are paying a premium to have the exclusive use of whatever you own, rather than anybody who wants to being able to use it at his or her whim. Being free to own property doesn't mean the property is free.

pldennison said: "No, you are paying a premium to have the exclusive use of whatever you own, rather than anybody who wants to being able to use it at his or her whim. Being free to own property doesn't mean the property is free"

So i am paying to use what I own so that other people can't use it without my permission?

are you saying that if we don't have a property tax that we will have to be a socialized country with no privite ownership of property where everyone has equal rights to all land? I don't get the logic.

You are right about one thing, property is not free. I paid for it, I own it.
Two points:

1) If I own it, and the tax is to ensure my exclusive rights to it that still does not explain how the government can annex my property for failure to pay the premium. If the premium (tax) buys me the right to exclusive use, tehn failure to pay should mean that I simply lose the right of exclusicve use, but still retain the property. "hey everybody, Thor didn't pay his taxes so you can all go camp on his lawn and keep your beer in his fridge!"

2) If I truly own something, it is mine..sort of the definition of "own." I certainly own these clothes, I own my table saw, I own this pen. but I do not pay a tax that goes on ad infinitum for the right to use it without it being annexed. Now my car, I make payments on that. When I stop, they take it. That is a lease. When I have to pay someone to keep possession of what i have, that is rent, not ownership.

I know, I know, taxes cover roads and sidewalks and schools and so on. There are alternate taxing arrangements where we would not have our property taken from me for failure to pay my annual rent.

If the government can take it from me, it ain't mine. It's theirs. And this was what we hve a constitution to protect us from. Does anyone want the government to have the right to take their property?

pldennison said: "No, you are paying a premium to have the exclusive use of whatever you own, rather than anybody who wants to being able to use it at his or her whim. Being free to own property doesn't mean the property is free"
So i am paying to use what I own so that other people can't use it without my permission?

In part. You are also paying for the roads that go to and from your home, and the infrastructure around it, and the police that protect it, and for some guys to take garbage away from it. In addition, the government has a legitimate right to continue to charge you for what, really, belongs to them.

are you saying that if we don't have a property tax that we will have to be a socialized country with no privite ownership of property where everyone has equal rights to all land?

Obviously, no.

You are right about one thing, property is not free. I paid for it, I own it.

In some socities, though, if I am bigger and better armed than you, I can simply take it away. Paying taxes helps to maintain a society in which this is not the case.

If I truly own something, it is mine..sort of the definition of "own."

In 500 years, is anyone truly going to give a shit what you "owned"? It's all temporary and conditional.

I certainly own these clothes, I own my table saw, I own this pen. but I do not pay a tax that goes on ad infinitum for the right to use it without it being annexed.

These are real basic civics concepts, here. Look up "excludable" and "nonexcludable." Also think about the difference between consumer items and parcels of land.

I know, I know, taxes cover roads and sidewalks and schools and so on. There are alternate taxing arrangements where we would not have our property taken from me for failure to pay my annual rent.

This sounds to me like another person who wants to get without giving. You want to avoid that risk? Rent instead of owning.

If the government can take it from me, it ain't mine. It's theirs.

It's really theirs anyway.

And this was what we hve a constitution to protect us from. Does anyone want the government to have the right to take their property?

They already can, according to the Constitution.

I am not trying to engage in a debate over metaphysical ownership: can one own land, can you truly own a tree?

I am not talking about other countries where "might makes right"

I am not talking about how much all of this will really matter in 500 years . Obviously it will not matter to you or I. (But maybe the Native Americans of today might have a few things to say about land rights over the past 200 years.)

Instead I am talking about the right of Americans to own private property vs the right of the government to annex it.

I see that it is your opinion that the governmnet owns it anyway and can take it at will. I would really like to see some quotes from the Constitution that support the logic underlying this conjecture.

As for taxes, there are many, many ways to tax the populace to support police, garbagemen, the senate, etc. you speak as if only property tax keeps us afloat. What about income tax, sales tax, automobile tax, etc? The fact that the state government can survive without a property tax is evidenced by teh survival of the states that currently do not have such a tax. Am I to believe that Montana has no police or garbage collection?

I will admit that I am unfamiliar with the term "excludable" as you apply it. Would you please supply a definition?

Quote:

"This sounds to me like another person who wants to get without giving. You want to avoid that risk? Rent instead of owning."

This is a joke, right? Or is there some income tax exemption for renters?

STODEILA -- Sorry it took me a couple of days to get back to this thread. I know about the convention in Butte because I live in Helena, sixty miles away. The controversy has not died down as far as I know; they're having a forum on it next week -- is your stepmother going? You said she's already here -- why? For the convention or does she live out here?

Back to the thread. My two cents is this: The people, through their duly elected representatives in legislatures, decide what behavior is legal and what is illegal. If we don't like it, we need to persuade a sufficient number of our fellow men to get the laws changed -- and good luck with that where legalizing drugs and prostitution is concerned. Personally, I don't give the proverbial rat's whether this stuff is legal or not; I don't use drugs, I don't patronize prostitutes, I don't gamble (unless it's legal) and I don't cry over the "injustice" visited over those who do. As someone else said above, if you don't like it, work to change it.

THOR -- Surely you see the difference between taxing something and owning it? You pay taxes on your money and your car -- does that mean that the government owns those things, too? Taxes are an obligation assessed on the public for payment of government services; in the case of property taxes, the property itself is the security for the obligation. In other words, if you don't pay your taxes, they can take your property not because they own it but because you (at the point of seizure) owe them an amount of money equal to the value of the property (or a large percentage thereof).

The government has no more or less right to tax your property than it does to tax your income, which is also 100% yours and to which, in theory, they have no right. Except the courts have held repeatedly that they DO have that right. If you don't accept that, I can put you in touch with a few wacko "freemen" out here who agree with you.

PLD:

t is also designed to see that the greatest number of people get what they want. Obviously, the greatest number of people do not want legalized heroin use.

Perhaps. I havent' heard of any referendums on it. But here's the important question: Why? Because the majority of people know heroin users? Because the majority of people have looked into it and recognized for themselves that the healthiest thing for our society is making criminals out of addicts? Or because the majority of people dont' think about it much at all, have a knee-jerk reaction to the mere idea of drug addicts, and swallow whole the government supported hysteria about drug use?

Because the fact is that intelligent people without axes of any kind are more and more waking up tot he fact that the most damaging thing about drugs, to society as a whole, are the laws that make make them illegal and thereby turn otherwise perfectly law-abiding people into criminals because of a personal weakness that in no way affects society itself. People in a position to see firsthand the damage the LAWS, not the drugs, are doing: judges, prosecutors, cops, doctors, politicians.

So "the people" wanting to keep drugs illegal is not very persuasive, since "the people" are jsut reacting the way they've been trained.

Jodih:

Well, since she's the one who is putting the whole thing together, she needs to be there! But she's also thinking of moving permanently, she loves it there. And since the Dumas is going to be ISWFACE (International Sex Workers Foundation for Art, Culture and Education) headquarters, it makes sense for the president to be located there as well.

They plan to trun Butte into the next Aspen. Plans are big...

And as for being indifferent to vice laws because you dont' participate? All the more reason you should care, since the criminal aspect that comes with these things is a direct result of their being illegal. Your life, health, and home would be alot safer without vice laws.



------------------
Stoidela

Butte the next Aspen??!! BWAHAHAHAH!!!! I'm glad your step-mom likes it there; I think it's a wretched place -- economically depressed, dilapitated, big ugly mine, no culture . . . . The best thing about Butte is seeing it in the rear-view mirror. I know a lot of people really like it there (especially the natives), but I'm not one of them.

I'm interested in your assertion that legalizing vice crimes would make my life, health, and home a lot safer -- I'm afraid I'm not following you there.

Well, she tells me that the skiing is fab, there are natural hot springs, you've got the historic downtown, etc. I haven't seen it, so I don't know, but she feels pretty good about it.

As for making your life, home, etc. safer? If all vice crimes were legalized, the rate of OTHER crimes would be significantly reduced. If drugs were cheap and available legally, you wouldn't have the criminal element controlling it, and you wouldn't have addicts forced to steal to support their wildly expensive habit.

We'd also have clean needles, which would drastically reduce disease. Some people might say "who cares? It's just drug addicts getting sick!" But as we should all know by now, it's not that simple. a junkie shares needles, gets hepatitis C, doesnt' know it, gets clean, leads a better life, has sex with some nice person who has never done drugs in their life, gives it to them...etc. We know the story.

Take away the fear of prosecution, and addicts will come forward for the clean needles. They'll even come forward for treatment.

Take only a small portion of the money now being spent on prosecution and punsihment and put it towards treatment and education, you help reduce the number of addicts overall.

If prostitution were legalized and regulated, you would have alot fewer streetwalkers (the form of prositution most people think of, though it is only a small portion) and the criminal pimps they hang out with. Also less disease, since prostitutes would be tested and licensed.

Bottom line is that vice crimes breed other crimes and other problems. If you take the "crim" out of "vice", you take alot of the crime and problems with it. Not to mention having alot more money and manpower to deal with REAL crimes.

So society as a whole is safer, healthier, and better off.



------------------
Stoidela

Stoidela - Notwithstanding your other points, I still don't buy the "safer without vice laws" argument. I do not necessarily believe that legalization will drive down the price of drugs, but even assuming a 50% decline, how would an addict be able to support a $250 a day habit as opposed to a $500 a day habit? People today commit crimes to obtain all manner of legal items, crimes to support a drug habit are the vast minority. Legalization of vice will also have no effect on the "criminal element. Most businesses that organized crime controls are legal - trucking, construction, garbage collection, and in Nevada, legalized gambling and prostitution. Don't expect the criminals to go away just because you legalize the products. They just take those now legal profits and use them to further other illegal endevours.

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

I was only skimming, so this may or may not be relative to the subject at hand, but if I may...

I'm going to paraphrase Gov. Jesse Ventura from an interview I saw on CNN a few weeks back. He has a really good idea (to me, who really knows jack about politics) about eliminating the income tax and creating a nationwide 15% sales tax. In doing this, the government would receive monies from drug and prostitution transactions. The interviewer stated that he would worry about an increased number of people using drugs and calling on the services of prostitutes if such things were legalized and regulated, to which the governor answered (something to the effect of)"If drugs are legal, are you going to go out and buy some? If prostitution is legal, are you going to go out and get yourself a hooker? I don't think you will, I don't think a lot of people will, but the people who do can do so without fear of fine or imprisonment." (Remember I'm paraphrasing) Anyway, I thought he was brilliant.

Of course there would have to be mandatory routine testing for the prostitutes, just as there is for medical people. And of course there would have to be laws stating that a prostitute must be able to prove his/her majority age, all methods of birth and disease control must be used at all times, and a clean bill of health must be immediately produced on demand. Yes, Neo dear, there would probably have to be a "brothel", and a "john" would most likely have to also be able to produce a clean bill of health and probably pay a membership fee or something to that effect. I'm reasonably certain that all the fun and excitement of anonimity would be taken away, but hey, it's still a consensual thing, and if a person wants to pay to have sex with someone, or if a person wants to get paid to have sex, so what?

Regarding legalizing drug use, it should be much like tobacco use now and at least have a stipulation that you must be 18 to purchase and use. As far as public smoking of marijuana, it's likely that there would be certain places (see: hash bars) where one would have to go if they felt the need to be smoking pot in public, otherwise, home would be the only place such things are allowed. IMHO, I don't think there should be any public place designated for the usage of drugs other than pot; heroin, crack and the like should be confined to a person's home only. And before someone gets started on me about this point, let me just say that if you are going to use drugs in your home, and you have children in your home, you'd better be wise and lock it up and store it up high where it can't be seen or accidentally "found".

Gambling? No major opinions, here. It's the most "accepted" of the three and to be honest, I didn't even know there was a law against it, considering all the casinos littered all over the country.

Note regarding drug usage: Granted, it is up to the person doing the drugs, but I would have to say here that I'm completely against using drugs if you are pregnant. At that point it is no longer your choice, it's your baby's life and that is probably the only major situation where drug use should be punishable by law, aside from the aforementioned purchase and use by a minor. Another sidebar: It should go without saying that sex and drug education for everyone should be mandatory. I'm rambling now, probably saying things that have been said before, but that's only because I have a fat bankroll burning a hole in my pocket and I can't decide whether I should hit the poker table, visit my favorite working girl, or score a bag first.

PLD:

quote:

t is also designed to see that the greatest number of people get what they
want. Obviously, the greatest number of people do not want legalized heroin
use.


Perhaps. I havent' heard of any referendums on it. But here's the important question:
Why? Because the majority of people know heroin users? Because the majority of people
have looked into it and recognized for themselves that the healthiest thing for our society
is making criminals out of addicts? Or because the majority of people dont' think about it
much at all, have a knee-jerk reaction to the mere idea of drug addicts, and swallow
whole the government supported hysteria about drug use?

Heroin used to be legal, you know. Now it isn't. You think there might be, oh, I don't know, a reason why it isn't? I mean, they made alcohol illegal, and in just about a decade, people decided that the social costs of easily-available and legal alcohol did not outweigh the benefits. They have not, though, been clamoring for legalized heroin. Do you suppose maybe society decided that the costs of legal heroin did outweigh the benefits? Or do you think you have some monopoly on truth?

Thor, I guess I can't explain it the way I want to. Let's look at it this way--first, we need to make a few assumptions:

--the Earth is made of land, and everyone we know lives on it,
--human beings prefer to organize, group and live in societies,
--living in societies confers some benefits but also requires some costs and compromises

Also, for the purposes of discussion, "excludable" means anything that other people are and can be prevented from using when you are using it; "non-excludable" means the opposite. Other people cannot use your shirt or your pen, but there are other shirts and pens that are for all practical purposes identical, and nobody can be prevented from buying one given that they have the money; your land, on the other hand, is unique, and once you own it, nobody else can.

Now, if we are going to gather in societies, we will want them to provide certain things for us, and those things cost money. And, it is assumed, those who choose to live in a certain society are going to take the responsibility to support that society financially, in order to gain those benefits.

The one certain way to assure that said support is provided is a tax--taking a certain percentage of each member's income, or a portion of each transaction. Since everybody needs land for some purpose or another, taxing land is a way to collect that money. And, if you are a landowner and are unwilling to provide that support, you lose the right to own that piece of land. The tax is the ongoing price you pay to keep your land excludable.

Oh yeah, BTW, Stoidela, in contrast to your claim that people wouldn't be crawling out of the woodwork to do drugs if they were legalized, one need but point to the pro-legalization Utopia: Amsterdam. A study by Robert MacCoun of the University of California, Berkeley showed that, after enforcement attempt were abandoned there in the 1970s and it was openly sold in the 1980s, marijuana use tripled.

Not to mention:

Drugs are legal or very nearly in a number of other countries. What happens? Everybody is safer and happier.

This is utter bullshit. You know what street crime is like in Amsterdam? Why do you think so many countries, not just the U.S., have criminalized drugs, and particularly hard drugs? (And if you say "drug war propaganda," I'll know you're full of crap. China, the former U.S.S.R. and Singapore don't give a rat's ass about drug war propaganda.) You don't suppose there are (gasp!) unacceptable social costs to legalization, do you?

Because the fact is that intelligent people

This is always when I know someone's argument is about to go awry--the implication that people who disagree with them are simply stupid.

without axes of any kind are more and more waking up tot he fact that the most damaging thing about drugs, to society as a whole, are the laws that make make them illegal and thereby turn otherwise perfectly law-abiding people into criminals because of a personal weakness that in no way affects society itself.

And yet, so many societies have criminalized these drugs after observing firsthand their effects on society.

People in a position to see firsthand the damage the LAWS, not the drugs, are doing: judges, prosecutors, cops, doctors, politicians.

Yes, heroin is no more harmful than Coca-Cola or Captain Crunch. It's the LAW that hurts people.

So "the people" wanting to keep drugs illegal is not very persuasive, since "the people" are jsut reacting the way they've been trained.

Oh, except you, the only person smart enough to see through the Goebbels-like fog, right? Puh-leeze. We can assume that most people are capable of formulating an opinion that is as informed and valid as yours, if not more so, rather than reacting in Pavlovian fashion.

If the majority of people preferred that drugs were legal, they would elect candidates that ran on pro-legalization platforms. They do not do so, ergo we can assume that legalization is not a preference or priority for most people. Do you think that drugs should be legalized against the wishes of most people? Are you ready to take responsibility for the inevitable social costs?

As for making your life, home, etc. safer? If all vice crimes were legalized, the rate of OTHER crimes would be significantly reduced.

I'd like to see some stastical evidence for this, please.

If drugs were cheap and available legally, you wouldn't have the criminal element controlling it,

Hmm. Records are cheap and readily available, and yet organized crime still finds it more profitable to pirate recordings to place in jukeboxes that they control rather than pay a rack jobber for them.

and you wouldn't have addicts forced to steal to support their wildly expensive habit.

You know, a great many addicts eventually find it difficult to keep a job.

Jodih, I pay a tax on my car, but the taxes are for the registration which gives me a right to use it on public roads. I have a car I am not using that is not registered right now. The governmet does not tax me on it until i want to use it. And they can't just come annex it. The situations are not the same as you contend.

pldennison, Again you are assuming that the only way to have a functioning society and public works is if there is a tax on property. This is not true as evidenced by states that do not have a property tax. My property tax is only about 2.7% of my income tax. when you add in the other taxes I pay, it gets smaller and smaller. I am not concerned about the amount, but rather the erosion of rights.

Lets assume that there is a way to maintain satisfactory sales revenue without a property tax. what would be the detriment to abolishing it? you seem to insinuate that if it were to be removed then private property with exclusive rights of usage would also disappear and it would become Non-excludable. I do not see this as the only logical outcome of the abolition of property tax.

I agree with you on the need for some kind of tax to maintain our society. I just do not agree that it must be a property tax.

And I really would like to see some constitutional cites regarding the matter. I am no scholar and appreciate this type of input for my own edification.

Back to the thread: The effects of the decriminalization of drugs are impossible to tell. WE could all argue whether the rates of use would go up or down till the cows come home. I started off supporting the philosophical increase in freedoms that would come with decriminalization. But alas, I must concede, these acts do not seem to fall under "rights." It is a legislative issue and the people have spoken. In the mean time we will have to pay the $50,000 per year necesary to keep non-violent drug offenders in the clink. Plus the courts, and law enforcement, public defenders etc :::: sigh.

pldennison, Again you are assuming that the only way to have a functioning society and public works is if there is a tax on property.

No, I'm claiming that it is an efficient source of revenue since everybody needs land for one use or another.

Lets assume that there is a way to maintain satisfactory sales revenue without a property tax. what would be the detriment to abolishing it?

None, on the face of it, although sales tax is regressive and property tax is not. Generally speaking, anyway. That's one of the best reasons for one.

you seem to insinuate that if it were to be removed then private property with exclusive rights of usage would also disappear and it would become Non-excludable.

No, not at all, sorry if I appear to be conflating the two. What I mean is that, because we live in a society in which property can be owned and is excludable, taxation of property is a simple way of achieiving society's fiscal goals. And the beauty of it is, nearly everyone pays it. Even if you rent, your rent goes towards your landlord's property taxes; and he also pays taxes on whichever property he lives on, assuming he owns it.

I guess more clearly put, if we didn't live in a society with the property rights we do, there would be nobody to tax for it. You'd have to find some way of charging all people a "user fee" for the land.

In any case, I would surmise that, in political philosophy, the government in power really owns all the land within its borders, and your ownership means you have the exclusive right until you sell it (or there is a new government), but they still have the right to tax you for that privelege.

Thanks for the concise answer, Pldennison. I will agree that it is an efficient form of tax revenue and it does cast a wide net, and thus is relatively fair. However, I will maintain that as far as the government's ability to annex the land is concerned, our rights are being violated. Reasonable minds can differ, and I think we will have to differ on this one.

By the way, I would vote for all taxes being included in a sales tax. After all, it is the only way to tax black market earnings.

And no, I am not a Militia nut who is planning on bombing the Whitehouse.

Jodih, I hope you read this because you said something in your last post that floored me. If I understood you correctly, you said that the gov. can sieze your house if you don't pay your property taxes and the amount owed is equal to or nearly equal to the value of the property. Well, a couple of years ago I was 2 weeks late in paying my property taxes and I immediately got a letter from the county threatening siezure. Now, my house was worth $115,000 at the time, it was fully paid for (no mortgage, no equity loans) and my property tax bill was for $2,200. What gives?

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

What gives is that your rights of ownership have been remanded to the state.

There was not even an income tax until 1913. Now, if you are late on your prop taxes, they take your house. Hell, you are probably just squandering your money on selfish things that don't do any social good. It's not fair. Some of your money should be given to those who need it. Does that bother you?

end rant....


Some people think that this is the way it should be. I say it is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. Not to great when it is your house the may take.

What gives is I was talking off the cuff, which I shouldn't do because it makes me look like the sort of lame-o who just tosses off opinions. Bad dog! BAD DOG!! Not that I was wrong, exactly -- just imprecise.

Okay, legally this is what happens. You don't pay your property taxes. The county files a lein against the property (which is a legal declaration that you owe them X dollars); at that point, the property can't be sold to anyone without that debt being paid out of the purchase price -- which means, practically speaking, that no one will buy it. So the county files its lein, and you still don't pay. The county then can file a suit to foreclose the lein -- to essentially say, this guy owes us X dollars and you, your honor, should make him pay it. The court can then order the lein to be paid and, if the property owner can't or won't pay it, the property can be sold to satisfy the lein. Say you owe $20,000 in property taxes on land worth $100,000. They would sell the land, give the county $20,000 to satisfy the lein, and give $80,000 to you.

I don't know (obviously) what happened in your case, but I'd make the following additional points: The county usually doesn't bother to file a lein for peanuts, so to speak, but $2000 is a nice chunk of change so they might for that. If they went ahead and tried to foreclose the lein, it is unlikely the court would make you sell your house, because the amount owed is so small compared to the value of the property. In such cases, the courts often decide that it is inequitable (not fair) to foreclose the lein and force the sale. But the judge will ask you why you haven't paid your taxes and she or he will order you to pay them ASAP. If you don't, the county can come back and say "he still won't pay us; let us sell the land" and the judge might then allow it to do so. Property Law 101 (boring as hell, isn't it?) It's also not my area of expertise, so this thumbnail explanation might not be 100% accurate in all respects.

THOR -- I'm not arguing with you, but I thought you might be interested to know that in my state (Montana) the people (through the legislature) have voted down a sales tax in every single one of the last 10 legislative sessions. Right or wrong, they obviously don't believe that's a better or more equitable way to raise revenues than through property taxes. Montana has one of the highest property tax rates in the country, BTW, but they still won't pass a sales tax.

Jodih, I thought that Montana had sales, but no property tax. I thought that that was why some of the militia groups ended up there.

And that is what *I* get for talking off the cuff.

pl, I didn't see your last post. philosophically the branched of government do not own all land. It falls under their jurisdiction for the purposes of managing what goes on and what duties they owe. But individuals still have the ultimate right of ownership. That is why there are amendments to protect individuals property against the government. only in specific circumstances can the government enter or seize my property.

The fifth amemdment states

; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the fourth states "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."

If the government "owned" the land, they could just come and take what is theirs, seach through it, whatever.

Now, individual state governments do have the right to create all taxes, including property taxes. But they can't perform illegal seizures or violate my right to be secure in my property.

Hair splitting, I know. But it was an important enought distinction to be included in the constitution.