> No, I meant what I said. Victimeless, and no it's not at all hard to define. Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality that try and tell you it's wrong to do things that only involve consenting adults.

I generally agree with you, and do not at all believe Christian morality is a good basis for laws. That said, I have to play devil's advocate

> Drugs

In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer. Granted, we don't like to think about it this way, and when we do it's usually for political showmanship instead of a real reason. But in the same way, building/living in a house that isn't up to fire or earthquake standards is a 'victimless' crime..... until my house catches on fire and burns down the whole block

> gambling

Gambling is often predatory to the poorer classes of society. Depending on how you're defining victim, low-income-earners could be seen as victims of gambling

> bigamy

Bigamy is historically correlated with misogyny. Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality; there are myriad examples of one-man-many-woman relationships in the Bible

> Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality;

While the Old Testament contains many examples of polygamy, all of them are neutral or bad examples. Jesus strongly implies that a man should have one wife and Paul explicitly says so, at least for leaders of the church.

From a practical standpoint, widespread polygamy (which usually means polygyny) can lead to imbalances in marriage opportunity between the rich and poor, men and women, young and old, etc. Banning bigamy is a way to regulate the marriage market, in a way. If tax evasion is harmful to society, polygamy is harmful to ugly, poor men.

> From a practical standpoint, widespread polygamy (which usually means polygyny) can lead to imbalances in marriage opportunity

So can widespread monogamy in certain circumstances. In fact, that's pretty much why polygamy usually manifests as polygyny -- in societies with norms favoring men fighting, or engaging in other high-risk activities and protecting women (and children, usually, but while that's important to the motivation, its irrelevant to the effect), after certain types of events, such as large scale (for the community affected) conflict, an exclusive monogamy rule means most women have no mates and prevents a society from rebounding (and makes it more likely that there culture will die out).

This is also probably why in history polygamy loses acceptance as a general norm as the scale of society gets larger and these kind of events affecting a whole society become less common.

Excellent points.

> If tax evasion is harmful to society, polygamy is harmful to ugly, poor men.

It's less than desirable for ugly poor men, but doesn't mean victim. There is no victim involved in not being chosen as a mate by a women. If 5 women choose to marry the rich man, that's a choice between consenting adults and it harms no other party.

No one is victimized by some other people getting married, whether it's because they're gay or because they're polygamists.

In an age of mass communication and easy global travel I could see it scaling up far beyond a rich guy marrying 5 women. It wouldn't be surprising to see certain superstars building harems counted by the hundred.

Nothing wrong with that as long as the women agree.

Where on Earth have we ever seen large-scale polygamy with all the women entirely agreed?

Not relevant as I clearly stipulated only if the women agree.

> abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer.

Both this and your gambling example lead us down a very scary path where the government is in charge of your health. I hate to use words republicans use when they don't apply, but that's a nanny state at best or a 1984-style dictatorship at worst. Perhaps we shouldn't be subsidizing poor choices in the first place. In any case, there are better solutions than the use of force and criminal penalties.

As for bigamy, I think you'll agree that a historical correlation doesn't imply an inseparable causality.

Most people, even today, believe they own themselves rather than believing that the state owns them and they are merely paying rent on themselves.

"Victimless crime" pretty much means a voluntary act which directly harms only the actor. Sure, you point to indirect harm from the actor harming themselves. But if I fricken own myself, you cannot claim that my harming myself is any sort of crime. And the people counting on others not to harm themselves better give them an incentive not to do it rather than imposing a prohibition.

> In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer.

An almost fair point... if and only if we get there, I'm not yet convinced we will, however drug use is not drug abuse. To call it a health issue it'd first have to affect your health negatively. If it does, that can be seen by the doctor and noted and then maybe you can be taxed higher to compensate, but use is not abuse.

Also, serious abuse could save tax payers money by killing you. So just because something affects your health negatively doesn't mean it costs more over your lifetime.

> Gambling is often predatory to the poorer classes of society. Depending on how you're defining victim, low-income-earners could be seen as victims of gambling

I reject the notion that you can be your own victim. If you choose to make decisions that hurt you, you must suffer the consequences; it is not the state's place to protect you from yourself. Jumping out of a perfectly good air plane is legal, and has a very high chance of killing you compared to other hobbies but we don't outlaw that.

> Bigamy is historically correlated with misogyny.

Not a reason to make it a crime. I'm allowed to hate things.

> Also, ironically, bigamy is not a violation of christian morality; there are myriad examples of one-man-many-woman relationships in the Bible

It's a violation of modern Christian morality; times change and so do the church's sense of morals.

> I reject the notion that you can be your own victim. If you choose to make decisions that hurt you, you must suffer the consequences; it is not the state's place to protect you from yourself.

Forget the state for a moment and try to scale it down. In a village where everybody knows and depends on each other, what would you do if an outsider came along and tricked one of your fellow villagers out of all their means?

When winter came, would you let that person die? No, you would use your own means to keep them alive.

Now, the next time this trickster came to town, would you just let them prey on the less perceptive of your fellow villagers again?

You're talking about fraud, I am not, your example does not apply. People like to gamble, they know they're probably going to lose, they are not being defrauded or lied to by being allowed to gamble.

There are countless problems with your analogy, however I will focus on one. Smoking pot recreationally cannot be equated with a trickster fooling someone out of all their money.

> If you choose to make decisions that hurt you, you must suffer the consequences; it is not the state's place to protect you from yourself.

1. Not ever? Surely you don't think that the age of majority/consent is 0-years-old?

2. Taxation for Military defense falls under that same umbrella! Normally, people would never pay any taxes to support it until they feel threatened... And then it's too late, and they suffer from their own short-sighted penny-pinching. Are you saying the government should not collectively protect them from their own decisions?

> Surely you don't think that the age of majority/consent is 0-years-old?

Need I preface everything I say with "between consenting adults?"

> Taxation for Military defense falls under that same umbrella

No it doesn't because taxation isn't a la carte; it's a fictional scenario.

> Need I preface everything I say with "between consenting adults?"

No, because it wouldn't help your argument anyway: The point (which I think you've tacitly acknowledged) is that sometimes the government SHOULD protect non-competent humans from making bad decisions... the only question is which shade of grey you think society should draw the line on.

> No it doesn't because taxation isn't a la carte; it's a fictional scenario.

Please read it again. I'm describing the system we DO have, and explaining how it is already preventing the society from making quote-unquote-"wrong" choices with their money.

Yes we should protect those who can't make those choices for themselves, but that's already the norm, there'd be a legal age no matter what we come up with. The interesting debate is what we allow adults to do, I consider the children a red herring.

Ok, I reread it, and I'd say providing for national defense was always a core job of government, it's in our constitution. The same is not true of these other things, we've not agreed by an amendment level of agreement that victimless crimes deserve jail. It's just wrong, there's no justification for jailing someone for anything related to what they ingest, who they marry and in what numbers, or anything else where the only direct victim is themselves. I own my body and no one has a right to claim otherwise.

> In a world where the government provides health care as a service (which is where we're trending, eventually), abusing your own health does have a victim: the taxpayer. Granted, we don't like to think about it this way, and when we do it's usually for political showmanship instead of a real reason.

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. You end up with a totalitarian nanny state that doesn't let anyone go outside or do anything with any degree of risk.

There have been science fiction stories written about that very future!

"In a world where the government provides health care as a service"

No need to dwell on hypotheticals. We can revisit this when the government starts paying for our healthcare. Regardless, this is a financial issue where the logical punishment is a fine, not prison.

Lots of countries do have public health care.

This article is specifically about America, however.

Yes, but we can learn from how other governments are dealing with problems like these. (Britain, for one, doesn't fine people for injuring themselves, I believe.)

All marriage is historically correlated with misogyny. Yet, the polyamorous folks I know are a lot less misogynistic than the ones who would want to keep polygamy illegal. (Needless to say, a woman should have the right to marry multiple husbands as well!)

Ok but defining victimless definitions would be a nightmare and ripe for abuse, violence is easy to define.

Drugs are only violent if they are illegal, rape is violence, gambling is sometimes legal-- noone should ever be locked up for gambling -- it is not violent. Morals should not be used, civil rights and not affecting others rights should be the metric. You start involving morals, a bunch of religions have different ideas of that. Violence and invading others personal rights is easy to define. The reason why we have a black market problem is defining things on 'morals'.

I could make the same argument about violence by talking about mental abuse. And as I said, morals are already involved, these crimes exist because of morals, not because they hurt people.

The fact is, victimless is as easy to define as violence is or easy enough to have a pretty clear line.

Consuming drugs hurts no one but the consumer. Having 5 wives hurts no one as long as they all consented. Gambling your own money should be your choice.

While there may be the occasional things on the margin, most are quite clearly victimless.

I agree with you but I feel like playing devils advocate.

>drugs hurt no one else

what about the family of the abuser? should a child grow up in the home of a heroin addict? doesn't society have the responsibility to protect children?

>gambling

humans are just dumb monkeys. we have psychological weaknesses to stuff like gambling. how many fathers will gamble away their grocery money?

>5 wives

is it really consent if a girl is too poor and uneducated to get a job and is forced into a polygamist marriage for subsistence?

If you allow widespread polygamy, degenerate gamblers and addicts won't tend to attract many wives, and will generally have far fewer children.. Boom, fewer children stuck with problematic non-providing parents. Thanks, market forces!

Devil's advocate back at ya.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think much of that type of thinking is what led to the black markets we have even though you use a smart way of defining victim. It can be interpreted all sorts of ways though. Civil rights and violence is much easier to define. Also as time goes on and systems change, the definition of victim might change i.e. in war, terrorism etc. If it is based solely on violence and civil rights then there is a clear line. But good discussion, sometimes in discussions people have different points of view and that is ok.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. Violence is also murky to define, I feel you're glossing over that a bit. All kinds of abuse exists that don't involve physical violence that are quite easily argued as violence.

We disagree on the detail and metric used to define it but I agree we are locking up way to many people and the punishment is cruel and unusual if it goes beyond the crime i.e. non-violent crime resulting in being locked up with criminals who are violent to me is cruel and unusual punishment and a rights violation.

I agree completely with that, and did in my first response. Non violent criminals should never see prison.

Drugs? Victimless? You may want to ask the Mexicans about that. The way I see, drug usage as an act itself may be victimless (though highly unlikely), but the way it reaches it's costumers is sure as hell isn't.

Those problems are not created by the drugs, you need to stop falling for this propaganda. Those problems are created by the laws against drugs. Legalize and those problems evaporate, buy your drugs from the pharmacy.

Prohibition creates crime, this is well known, and a lesson we should have learned with alcohol and gangsters.

> Drugs, sex, gambling, bigamy, etc; basically laws based on Christian morality

I'm curious what you say to the argument that manufacturing and profiting off extremely addictive and harmful drugs (ie meth or heroin) is a victumful crime?

Many people get "hooked" on drugs like this, and it often ruins them both physiologically and financially. How can you justify ignoring such people as victims? Especially if they were young or even children when they started?

> extremely addictive and harmful drugs

Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims?

> Like alcohol? Should we make it illegal again to protect its victims?

It is very possible to use alcohol recreationally without becoming physically dependent on it.

You can't say the same for drugs like heroin or meth.

Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted. The time is shorter than for alcohol but not instantaneous.

What catches people is a psychological addiction: heroin high just feels incredibly good (disclaimer: I did not try it so I translate other peoples' opinions). But the same can be said about alcohol, sugar, games like the infamous 2048, and great many other things.

Of course there are substances that would kill the user quickly and harm even from one use, like PCP or the infamous krokodil. But the same can be said about methanol, or sulphuric acid, or many other hazardous substances. These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned.

> Actually, you have to use heroin regularly for months to become physiologically addicted.

I don't think I'm remiss in saying that most who start using heroin do in fact get to that point, am I?

> These substances are appropriately packed, abundantly labeled with warnings — but their use is not banned.

Comparing sulphuric acid to heroin is a huge stretch for me. Sure, injecting sulphuric acid into your arm is definitely going to be a lot more harmful than heroin... but heroin is intended to be used as a drug, and is harmful when used as intended. The acid is not.

Though I don't have any stats ready on how many heroin users end up as addicts that actually hurt their health, and how many recover later, you don't seem to have it either. Before we have some kind of numbers, I don't think discussing this can lead anywhere constructive.

I'm pretty sure that most users of nicotine (as smoked tobacco or in electronic cigarettes) get physiologically addicted pretty quickly, and in a pretty hard way. Though this is inconvenient to them, it usually does not bother people around, because nicotine is not a behavior-altering substance (unlike alcohol or cocaine). AFAIK, heroin is not a behavior-altering substance either. It's the lack of a dose what dangerously alters the behavior of a heroine addict (or an alcohol addict).

Since heroin is outlawed, users have far lower thresholds to pass to act unlawfully in other regards, since they feel like criminals already. A heavy nicotine addict may suffer immensely without a fix, but usually stays a lawful citizen despite it.

Take insulin: it's also intended to be used as a drug, and improper use can quickly kill you. Thats why it's a prescription-only substance, but a completely lawful one. Quite a few over-the-counter drugs can kill you, or at least severely cripple you, if used improperly. Do you think outlawing them is a good idea? (Hell, 3/4 pound of table salt, if ingested quickly, would kill you. I hope you exercise reason when adding salt to your food.)

> Quite a few over-the-counter drugs can kill you, or at least severely cripple you, if used improperly. Do you think outlawing them is a good idea?

No, of course I don't: making something illegal because it is dangerous when misused or used contrary to its intended purpose is silly. I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing is that a substance that is created to be used in a specific manner, and causes known substantial harm when used in that manner should not be tolerated by society.

That's what a cigarette is: it's this thing that is made to be used in a way that has been shown without a shadow of a doubt to contribute to many fatal ailments in a major way.

I put heroin and meth in that category: dangerously addictive substances that are known to cause substantial harm when used as intended.

You've confused drug use with drug abuse. You've demonized recreational drug use and decided people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what they put in their own bodies. You are the reason we're having this ridiculous drug war and you are the problem with this country.

> You've demonized recreational drug use and decided people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what they put in their own bodies.

There's an enormous difference between prohibiting individual use of a dangerous drug, and allowing somebody to manufacture and sell a dangerous drug for profit. The latter troubles me deeply, and that's what I'm talking about.

Profiting off of human suffering is not something society should ever tolerate.

> you are the problem with this country.

Oh boy! Do I get a sticker?

> There's an enormous difference between prohibiting individual use of a dangerous drug, and allowing somebody to manufacture and sell a dangerous drug for profit.

No there isn't, if it's acceptable to consume, it's acceptable to sell; you can't allow one without the other and claim any sort of logic behind it, it's simply stupid.

> Profiting off of human suffering

And once again confusing use with abuse. Drug users are not suffering.

this is an argument against alcohol, not for other drugs. And personally I think society would be better off without it.

Well, sure, if you're pulling assertions out of thin air that agree with your narrow-minded views, and declaring them fact.

1. when did i pull an assertion out of thin air? I stated my opinion, I didn't "assert" anything. 2. why am I narrow-minded for disagreeing with you? that seems pretty "narrow-minded" to "assert" that. 3. I never said we should outlaw alcohol but I don't think anyone would disagree that society would be a lot better if alcohol didn't exist.

Not only that, people consuming illegally acquired drugs are empowering drug cartels and here's the kind of situations it leads to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3nIfE0AUys

P.S The video contain very explicit images and commentary.

Here's a roughly translated quote to give you an idea: "During December there were 14 girls between 11-12 year old raped"

If those drugs were legal those bastards would never be able to compete with Merck or Bayer, and would go away forthwith.

So, you're advocating putting cigarette manufacturers in jail? If not, why not?

Hell yes. For life.

That we as a society allow groups of men to make billions selling a tremendously addictive product that has unequivocally been shown to kill its users is, for me, absolutely heinous.

What about brewers and distillers? Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone.

Or maybe you like a drink now and then....

> Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone.

Nope: _Abuse_ of Alcohol is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths in the U.S. alone.

You don't have to abuse cigarettes: you just use them, and they kill you.

The _abuse_ of anything is bad. Alcohol is still a societal danger. If you really want to protect people you should make it illegal.

But I bet you like a drink now and then, so you're willing to let other people die so you can get a buzz on.

Edit: can't reply to your reply so I'm appending here:

Your non reply confirms my guess. Because you like your drug of choice you are ok with it being legal, but other people can get fucked. Do you really think people are protected from drugs by making them illegal?

Have you ever given a moments thought to the death and destruction that comes from the War on Drugs itself? Do you have any notion of what a powerful weapon it has become in the war on humanity?

Or are you just a sanctimonious narcissistic nanny-stater? This madness continues because of support from people like you, you twit.

> Your non reply confirms my guess. Because you like your drug of choice you are ok with it being legal, but other people can get fucked.

Alcohol is not my drug of choice. You're assuming a lot here...

> Do you really think people are protected from drugs by making them illegal?

Do I think prosecuting individuals for using drugs makes sense? Not at all, and that has never been my argument here.

I don't want Meth4U Inc. getting people hooked on meth, ruining their lives, and making a massive profit off of them. That is unconscionable.

So decriminalize the use of all drugs. I don't care. I never said I did. Going after individual users is a ridiculous waste of money and human capital.

However, I feel very strongly that the manufacture and sale of dangerous drugs like meth and heroin (or cigarettes) should not be tolerated by society. Will people still find a way to get away with it? Probably, but it's quite a bit harder to make and keep a profit if it's illegal.

> Or are you just a sanctimonious narcissistic nanny-stater?

I think that profiting off of human suffering is not something society should ever tolerate. If that makes me a "nanny-stater", so be it.

> The _abuse_ of anything is bad. Alcohol is still a societal danger. If you really want to protect people you should make it illegal.

There is a huge difference between things that are fatal if abused, and things that are fatal if used as intended.

Surely you must see the difference?

crazy libertarians always find their way into every discussion. try not to get so worked up bud.

So, what do you say about McDonalds?

> So, what do you say about McDonalds?

Come on...

Same answer: _Abuse_ of food kills people.

Occasionally eating McDonalds on road trips isn't good for you, sure, but it's not going to meaningfully harm you in the long run unless you do it frequently.

I've read articles pointing to physically addictive effects of fast food, but comparing that to nicotine is silly.

OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions and doesn't belong in a discussion about what consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to do. As with all things children related, we can have different laws for them; giving children drugs is victimizing them as they're not capable of making those choices legally or emotionally.

Now, to your point. No one forced anyone to try drugs; I reject any notion that you're your own victim. If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone. That it can and does often ruin people both physiologically and financially are called consequences of your actions. No one forced you, there is no victim here.

> OK, first, leave children out of this discussion. That's a play on emotions

I'm not meaning to play emotions; however, I don't think you can just write it off: if all drugs were legalized, you would see use among youth increase (just as you would likely see an increase in any other subset of the population).

> If you choose to put something in your body, that's a choice, you were not victimized by anyone.

For me, very physiologically addictive substances are a different category: in that case, you have somebody with full knowledge of the danger and addictiveness of the drug knowingly enticing others to start using it with the end goal of causing them to become addicted and making a lot of money off of them. I see that as a very low form of extortion.

I will not try meth because, despite whatever curiosity I have about the drug's effects, I know I am probably not capable of willing my way out of a very real physical addiction. Somebody less educated and rational is much more likely to say, "Sure, I'll try it once", and go downhill from there. For me, that person is being victimized. Sure, they made the decision, but it was an uninformed one.

Now, I have no idea how to solve that problem. I think that the US's ridiculous drug policy probably ruins more lives than the drugs would if they were legal. But whenever I think about blanket legalization, I can't escape feeling uneasy about the above.

Then offer medical help, but outlawing drugs is a failed solution and that applies to all drugs. Prohibition creates more problems than it solves and it makes the state an enemy of its own citizens. Prohibition doesn't work, it does not work.

That uneasy feeling is called cognitive dissonance, you're realizing the propaganda you've been fed is wrong but you haven't yet accepted its complete failure even though you know it intellectually.

You didn't leave religion or sex out of the discussion, so getting ticked off at someone else's pandering seems a bit hypocritical.

I didn't get ticked off, and religion and sex are relevant, children are not as I've been clear about "between consenting adults" for precisely this reason.

In Internet argument fashion, a bunch of people will just jump all over you, and take your words through every useless permutation of meaning they can think of, for which they can contrive a shallowly plausible counterargument. I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.

I understood what he said. But nice fallacious empty message here. Tell me how you define victimless? How do you define violent? Which one is easier to define in court? Or would you rather just invade discussions with fallacies and attacking the messenger? Also didn't you just jump all over my message?

> I grow more and more convinced that very few people read to comprehend.

As do I. I find myself continually defending things I didn't say because people are more concerned with arguing with what they think I meant rather than reading what I actually said.