Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

digsbe said:

within the realm of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Where in the constitution is the Government vested with the power to implement "societal standards" through law?

radcen said:

This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.

Click to expand...

I would assume that the spouse entered into that relationship willingly, thus his/her victim status would rest on his/her shoulders. If an individual is doing drugs, and being abusive to the other spouse, then the one being abused can either leave or stay willingly. As for the offspring of said relationship, if they are in danger, then remove them from the home.

Cephus said:

Then the government has no business paying for the consequences of said action. So if these people die on the streets, let them. They ought to get ZERO financial help from the taxpayer, or frankly, from private insurance except that which they pay for entirely out of their own pocket.

You want to be stupid, foot your own bill.

Click to expand...

I agree.

And I think it's a very big problem with any form of universal health care. I don't mind helping pay for someone who has just fallen on hard times and can't afford the bill themselves. But I don't want to have to pay for someone's emphysema treatment cause they've smoked two packs a day for most of their adult life. Just like you don't want to pay for my risky behaviors.

radcen said:

This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the "victimless crime" phrase specifically in your post, but it is a common preferred phrase for this POV.)

Click to expand...

They're only victims to you because the person being an addict or whatever is doing something you don't like.

If a person is gay and comes out to their extremely homophobic parents, it can cause them just as much psychological and familial anguish as it would if they were a drug addict. My grandmother was distraught for the first few years of my life because I was never baptized, and as an incredibly god-fearing Catholic, she feared for my soul in a way that was and is very real to her. She and my mother fought bitterly over it for years.

Are they "victims?" At what point do I become responsible for someone else's feelings?

While it may be true that we all agree that being upset by a loved one being a drug addict is far more reasonable, it doesn't change the reality that the pain is very real to the homophobe or the god-fearing. Just because everyone doesn't agree on it doesn't mean the pain isn't real for them.

Yet most of us wouldn't tell the gay person to get back in the closet, or tell me I should become a Catholic. Because in those situations, we believe people are responsible for how they feel.

Why aren't they in the case of a drug addict? Why are they "victims" when it's drugs?

I'm not saying the way they feel isn't legitimate. or that the impact it can have on their family isn't real. I'm just saying that we are ultimately responsible for how we feel and react. It's not as though the addict is purposefully trying to hurt them. They're hurt because of their emotional disposition towards that person. The person has no control over that. And ultimately, while we should care about the feelings of the people we love, that doesn't mean we are responsible for them, and it doesn't negate the reality that addiction isn't something you can just flip off like a switch.

radcen said:

This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the "victimless crime" phrase specifically in your post, but it is a common preferred phrase for this POV.)

Click to expand...

But it's not the actual consumption of the drugs that's hurting anyone.

These negative effects you're talking about - the same exact thing can be said of alcohol. Alcoholics can be absolutely brutal to their loved ones. But that doesn't mean drinking alcohol in and of itself victimizes someone. If someone quietly and responsibly sips a drink in the privacy of their own home while relaxing, what would you call that if not a victimless crime?

That is what is meant by victimless crime. That is the difference between, say, smoking weed and stealing someone's wallet. By definition, theft necessarily victimizes someone. Smoking pot does not necessarily victimize someone.

Cephus said:

Then the government has no business paying for the consequences of said action. So if these people die on the streets, let them. They ought to get ZERO financial help from the taxpayer, or frankly, from private insurance except that which they pay for entirely out of their own pocket.

You want to be stupid, foot your own bill.

Click to expand...

The more absolute the sentiment, the more absurd the sentiment.

If somebody were to "die on the street", would you leave them there to decay and cause very real potential harm to YOU and and your family in the form of disease from the unsanitary conditions? Or, would you rather the taxpayer kick in something for the common good and at least properly dispose of the body?

lizzie said:

I would assume that the spouse entered into that relationship willingly, thus his/her victim status would rest on his/her shoulders. If an individual is doing drugs, and being abusive to the other spouse, then the one being abused can either leave or stay willingly. As for the offspring of said relationship, if they are in danger, then remove them from the home.

Click to expand...

Danger? What danger? They're not victims, right?

Why would you advocate the government step in for something that MIGHT happen, but stand back after it has happened?

radcen said:

Danger? What danger? They're not victims, right?

Why would you advocate the government step in for something that MIGHT happen, but stand back after it has happened?

Click to expand...

You are the one who called them victims, not I. I was responding to your own assumptions.

the_recruit said:

But it's not the actual consumption of the drugs that's hurting anyone.

These negative effects you're talking about - the same exact thing can be said of alcohol. Alcoholics can be absolutely brutal to their loved ones. But that doesn't mean drinking alcohol in and of itself victimizes someone. If someone quietly and responsibly sips a drink in the privacy of their own home while relaxing, what would you call that if not a victimless crime?

That is what is meant by victimless crime. That is the difference between, say, smoking weed and stealing someone's wallet. By definition, theft necessarily victimizes someone. Smoking pot does not necessarily victimize someone.

Click to expand...

When you qualify it, I don't disagree. In fact, when qualified like this, I absolutely agree. Most people, however, take the phrase at face value. Huge mistake, and short-sighted. I don't know everybody in the world well enough to know if they know the difference or not, without said qualification. I get leery of people who like to speak in absolutes.

lizzie said:

You are the one who called them victims, not I. I was responding to your own assumptions.

Click to expand...

No. Words have meaning. Your words meant the same thing, even if not the specific word "victim" was used in your post.

You also edited out my disclaimer regarding that point.

ETA: Oh, and since we're down to debating semantics, it's safe to say we've found common ground... so to speak.

radcen said:

No. Words have meaning. Your words meant the same thing, even if not the specific word "victim" was used in your post.

You also edited out my disclaimer regarding that point.

Click to expand...

But you are the one who brought up victimhood. I did not. I said that I could let people make their own bad choices, then clean up their own problems that they created. You brought in the victimhood issue.

radcen said:

Finish the evening then we can say if there was a victim or not.

Click to expand...

right you are. The victim is ME. Because i have to pay almost $200 for an 8-ball of bunk. I have to foot the enormous overhead cost that comes with running an international illegal smuggling operation and a product that is grown in a different ****ing hemisphere.

Cephus said:

While on paper it sounds like a good idea, you'd quickly establish an underground prostitute slave culture where powerful pimps keep women in forced prostitution, either with threats of violence, drugs or blackmail. I'm sure there is a way to significantly reduce illegal prostitution and improve the lot of women involved voluntarily, but the criminal element isn't going to just go away and get decent jobs just because you legalize it.

Likewise, you can't just legalize everything and the criminal element that now makes it's living off of soft drugs will just move on to harder drugs. Designer drugs, things that are horrible addictive and destructive, would be just as much of a problem as the soft drugs are today. Criminals aren't going to go away because we want them to.

Click to expand...

You got any proof for these assertions? You have anything to actually back up the idea that the people who are purchasing the services of prostitutes or purchasing these drugs won't go almost exclusively to the legal options? Prostitutes suffer violence from their pimps because they have no legal protection. If they go to the law, they'll get put away as well. If a prostitute is brutalized by a client, she can't go to the cops. Right now, the only choice when acquiring sex for hire or drugs is to deal with criminals. Given the choice, almost anyone would choose a safe, legal, and regulated route. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need some pretty compelling evidence.

DiAnna said:

I hate being at the bottom of a page. Nobody ever reads my stuff and tells me how brilliant it was.

Click to expand...

My god that's brilliant!

Cephus said:

While on paper it sounds like a good idea, you'd quickly establish an underground prostitute slave culture where powerful pimps keep women in forced prostitution, either with threats of violence, drugs or blackmail. I'm sure there is a way to significantly reduce illegal prostitution and improve the lot of women involved voluntarily, but the criminal element isn't going to just go away and get decent jobs just because you legalize it.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that already exist? Last I checked pimps do all of those things already. I think what legalizing it would allow a lot of women to go to the police because they themselves won't have to worry about being arrested. Of course there are still going to be criminals and evil pimps, by legalizing it I feel you would reduce a lot of the criminal element involved in it especially as time passes.

Cephus said:

Likewise, you can't just legalize everything and the criminal element that now makes it's living off of soft drugs will just move on to harder drugs. Designer drugs, things that are horrible addictive and destructive, would be just as much of a problem as the soft drugs are today. Criminals aren't going to go away because we want them to.

Click to expand...

Agreed

partier9 said:

Doesn't that already exist? Last I checked pimps do all of those things already. I think what legalizing it would allow a lot of women to go to the police because they themselves won't have to worry about being arrested. Of course there are still going to be criminals and evil pimps, by legalizing it I feel you would reduce a lot of the criminal element involved in it especially as time passes.


Agreed

Click to expand...

Legalizing would help, I agree, but I also agree with Cephus that legalizing would not eliminate abuse/crime completely. I do think it would lessen, though.

digsbe said:

Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?

Click to expand...

Who are "we" and where did we get the power to permit or disallow? I think you are referring to 'them', our Big Brothers.

digsbe said:

Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?

Click to expand...

In general, I think people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. The thing is, my definition of harm is broader than direct physical harm. I include psychological harm and societal harm by causing disorder. Consequently, things like public sex and drug legalization sound permissible on the surface, it's possible that they aren't under my standard of judgement because of the psychological harm or societal they might cause.

Mensch said:

Of course they are. Please give reasoning as to why individual drug use and addiction (not theft to feed the addiction) is harmful to others. Legal, locally regulated prostitution? How does that harm others?

Click to expand...

A society filled with addicted people would be incredibly harmful. Our society would no longer be able to function.

ThePlayDrive said:

A society filled with addicted people would be incredibly harmful. Our society would no longer be able to function.

Click to expand...

So, the only thing stopping you from shooting up heroin is a law which says you cannot?

Your claim has no substantiated evidence. The point of the response was that individual drug use does not harm others. Can you prove me wrong on this claim?

I'm actually with you guys on this.

Legalize drugs. The government can tax it, it will free up the expense of sending drug users through our court system and incarceration, and natural selection can run its course. People stupid enough to do too much can face the consequences of their own actions.

As far as prostitution it already happens legally in some parts of the us and is legal in europe. If people want to do it, they will find a way, why criminalize it?

I have even softened my stance on gay marriage over the years. I don't like it but it doesn't do me any harm either.

Morally I am against these items but I don't believe it is the governments job or right to dictate whether people can or can't engage in these activities.

ThePlayDrive said:

A society filled with addicted people would be incredibly harmful. Our society would no longer be able to function.

Click to expand...

Actually, once they removed themselves from the equation, as a result of their stupidity, society would probably function better.

Mensch said:

So, the only thing stopping you from shooting up heroin is a law which says you cannot?

Click to expand...

I don't remember saying that. Are you one those dishonest posters who attributes arguments to people that they haven't made? If so, we can end this now because I'm not in the mood.

Your claim has no substantiated evidence.

Click to expand...

I claimed that a society of addicts would be harmful to society. The consequences of addiction alone are substantiated evidence for my claim. Do you deny that if society (including government, schools, corporations, etc.) were filled with people who were perpetually on heroin, cocaine, meth and everything else, society would be harmed?

The point of the response was that individual drug use does not harm others. Can you prove me wrong on this claim?

Click to expand...

Individual drug use by many people harms society. The end. It seems like your attempting to keep individual drug use in a vacuum where it's interaction with the world does not exist. Unfortunately for you, I base my opinions on reality and individual drug use does not exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, it exists within a society and consequently, it has effects on society, effects that are harmful. And as I said, a society filled with addicts would be harmful to society.

DiAnna said:

I disagree. Yes, the people who love a drug addict are affected by the addiction. That does not negate the fact that a consenting adult should have the right to do whatever he/she wishes with his/her own body, be it taking drugs, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, whatever. If drugs were legal, global crime cartels would implode overnight, and the money saved on drug enforcement could be funneled into low-cost rehabilitation and education facilities.

Prostitution should also be legal and regulated. Unless the prostitute is being forced, a violation of many other laws, then she is plying her trade of her own free will. Her clients are there of their own free will. If you're thinking they harm others because of STD's, a legal, regulated prostitute is cleaner and more savvy than the mistress the married guy bonks in the office. If you're thinking about the wives being deceived, that's on the married man who fools around, not on the prostitute.

Prohibition never works. History has shown us that prohibiting what people can ingest or do with their own bodies does nothing but make felons out of non-criminal citizens, and prop up a profitable crime syndicate to provide a black-market service.

Both drug laws and prostitution laws are on the books for one reason and one reason only: The continuing need for lots and lots of law enforcement jobs, and the continuing need for government enforcement bureaucracies, like the DEA. If we made drugs and prostitution legal, the supporting crimewave would fold and they'd lose a lot of jobs and power.

Click to expand...

I think this is a brilliant post...

I think one of the biggest problems with legalizing drugs and all these other things is, what would we do with all these prisons? This is BIG BUSINESS!!! Wall Street has been noticing this over the last 10 yrs and is lobbying hard to privatize more and more of them. This is already a breeding ground for corruption, just think how much worse it would be once it's privatized...People think we are building more prisoners because more people are breaking the law when it's pretty clear that our gov't is creating more laws to fill up more prisons...

JasonI said:

I think one of the biggest problems with legalizing drugs and all these other things is, what would we do with all these prisons? This is BIG BUSINESS!!! Wall Street has been noticing this over the last 10 yrs and is lobbying hard to privatize more and more of them. This is already a breeding ground for corruption, just think how much worse it would be once it's privatized...People think we are building more prisoners because more people are breaking the law when it's pretty clear that our gov't is creating more laws to fill up more prisons...

Click to expand...

Please link to evidence that wall street is lobbying to privatize prisons. :lamo