Are Vices Crimes?

[R. Richard]

Why does society have to pay?

If you wish to quietly drink yourself to death, why is it society's responsibility to save you from yourself?

I recently went into the hospital for some minor surgery. As I was walking out, I went past a room where a boy on oxygen was removing the oxygen feed to smoke a cigarette. I asked the nurse at the duty station why they allowed the boy to smoke in the hospital.

The nurse told me that the boy was a former high school big shot who flopped at pretty much everything after high school. He is addicted to booze, cigarettes and drugs. He spends a lot of time in the hospital as a charity patient, since he is on disability. They don't let him have cigarettes but his buddies sneak them in. She will have his nurse take the cigarette away, but it will do no good.

The hospital charges something like $5,000 per day which is a normal charge. One of the reasons they charge so much is to recover the costs from people like high school big shot.

I don't give a damn about his vices, except second hand smoke. I do give a damn about the money I spend to maintain him and his suicidal habits. That money could be used to help people who need and want help, instead of wasting it on suicide boy. The hospital people have no choice, they are required to service suicide boy, it is the law.

 

[msboy8]

I recently went into the hospital for some minor surgery. As I was walking out, I went past a room where a boy on oxygen was removing the oxygen feed to smoke a cigarette. I asked the nurse at the duty station why they allowed the boy to smoke in the hospital.

The nurse told me that the boy was a former high school big shot who flopped at pretty much everything after high school. He is addicted to booze, cigarettes and drugs. He spends a lot of time in the hospital as a charity patient, since he is on disability. They don't let him have cigarettes but his buddies sneak them in. She will have his nurse take the cigarette away, but it will do no good.

The hospital charges something like $5,000 per day which is a normal charge. One of the reasons they charge so much is to recover the costs from people like high school big shot.

I don't give a damn about his vices, except second hand smoke. I do give a damn about the money I spend to maintain him and his suicidal habits. That money could be used to help people who need and want help, instead of wasting it on suicide boy. The hospital people have no choice, they are required to service suicide boy, it is the law.

I agree with you RR, with the same reasonings, Why do they prevent people from committing suicide on Death Row?

 

[BlackShanglan]

smoking laws - Afaik no laws against you smoking. only against you smoking in a place or in a manner where it can harm others (passive smoking)
corportat policy on peronal lives (ie smoking)- No. because by harming yourself you are harming people who depend on you
prostitution - Not sure about that one. I think it has to do with the seediness of the business ad the desperation and criminality that often surrounds it. Buton the other hand, there is no saying that what society deems as "immoral" although it hurts nobody can't be outlawed.
gambling - See above
etc... - that's a tricky one.

Bottom line is, any vice can be handled irresponsibley to the degree where it affects and harms others. Then it becomes a crime.

Liar's comments I think bring up two excellent points.

(1) What about things that are not intended to injure others, but which end up costing them money, time, resources, etc.? His comment on corporate smoking policies I think comes in here. The employee doesn't light up a cigarette in order to scew the company, but if the incidental effect is to cost the company $1000/year extra in health insurance, haven't they got a right to object? Similarly, when a power plant releases pollutants into the air, they're not deliberately trying to harm everyone around them - but they are having an effect, either immediate or cumulative. Can we afford to ignore the effect?

(2) What about vices that are closely linked to crimes? If one looks, for example, at correlations between substance abuse and burglary, or between prostitution and organized crime, should one ignore the close connections? When vices seem to encourage some sorts of crime, shouldn't they be investigated and possibly curtailed?

I'll add a third one as well ...

(3) How can we truly delineate which acts are really "harmless"? For instance, Britain at the moment has many prostitutes working at poverty-level rates to support gangmasters and pimps who have lured them into the country with promises of legal work. When they arrive, the "handlers" take their papers from them, leaving them alone in a foreign country with no documents, little money, and no friends. In some cases, those who resist their new circumstances are raped. While it's simple to say "investigate the crimes - theft of papers, physical threats, rape," I'd argue that under force, the prostitution itself is a crime, as the woman is an unwilling victim. And of course we're also back to #2 - some vices seem to draw crime like flies.

Shanglan

 

[Weird Harold]

I do give a damn about the money I spend to maintain him and his suicidal habits. That money could be used to help people who need and want help, instead of wasting it on suicide boy. The hospital people have no choice, they are required to service suicide boy, it is the law.

Which was the point of my question and an incidental implication of the essay -- WHY is it or should it be the law that every hospital must take in indigent patients?

From the viewpoint of the 1870's such a law would be a ludicrous suggestion proposed by the socialist trade unions and an unwarranted interferance by Government in a private industry.

(2) What about vices that are closely linked to crimes? If one looks, for example, at correlations between substance abuse and burglary, or between prostitution and organized crime, should one ignore the close connections? When vices seem to encourage some sorts of crime, shouldn't they be investigated and possibly curtailed?

Historically, those "vices" were NOT linked to crime at anything like the degree they are today. The only real difference between the historical pattern and the modern pattern is the criminalization of substance abuse and prostitution -- AKA Prohibition.

In other words, when our legal system turned way from the philosphy espoused in the essay, we actually created more "crimes" than we eliminated. By confusing "Vice" with "Crime" -- under the definitions in the essay -- we've created situations where amoral criminals have an opportunity to profit by ignoring the law and compounding the "crime" of "vice" by linking it to other criminal activities.

The presumption of law is, in all cases, that the sale is innocent; and the burden of proving it criminal, in any particular case, rests upon the government. And that particular case must be proved criminal, independently of all others.

Subject to these principles, there is no difficulty convicting and punishing men for the sale or gift of any article to a man, who is made dangerous to others by the use of it. "

By making all sales of "illegal" substances illegal, and deviating from the presumption of innocence, you remove any reason for the dealers to concern themselves with the effects of the substances they sell.

Further by making sale of drugs illegal, you remove most moral limitations on those who sell them with regard to other crimes -- only someone who has an inherent disregard for the law will sell them, and because once someone crosses the line from "law-abiding" to "criminal" there is little point in quibbling over the nature of the crimes commited and restricting criminal activites to drug sales.

Arguing that Vices that are associated with crimes should BE crimes is a circular argument that will, in fact, create more crime instead of reducing it.

 

[Op_Cit]

the question is not "what things are vices and what things are Crimes? The question is "Does the government have a right to legeslate against Vices? Do you agree or disagree with the points made by the author? Has he made his point? And if not, were has he failed to make the point-- what is his error?"

You're getting the brunt of the statist arguments. Here's my (the anarchist's) argument against Spooner/Schaffer (simplified):

If you support the existence of government you support legislation against vices.

Here's the abridged socratic discussion:

What is the reason that (oh so very many) people think that government is required?

Why, to protect me. (Spoonerists--AKA libertarians--say to "protect my rights")

Protect you from what?

Others' infringements on me.

But wait, why can't you protect yourself?

Well, because those infringers may be bigger, more numerous, or ephemeral.

OK, so, then how do we protect the one (individual)?

We band together, and enforce that no one is infringed against.

How do we decide what needs to be enforced?

Well we use this handy dandy Universal Dictionary of Natural Rights. whadayamean you lost it? OK, nevermind, we don't need it. Ahem, we, as a group, will decide what needs to be enforced.

What manner of decision process will we make use of to decide?

Idunno, how about 66.666% yes votes for any proposed infringement-restrictions?

OK, then, how will we enforce these things to protect the individual?

We'll band together and march as one to stop, hunt down, and or punish the infringers. Well, actually we're kind of busy. Why don't we pay a gang to do it for us and give them authority over us.

There. Perfect. Now it's settled, and it's brilliant. Let it be so... Huh, what's that? Yes, you there in the back, you have a question?

(village idiot in the back row stands up and asks) What if you make a mistake? Or what if I don't think I'm infringing but 66% of you do think I'm infringing... Who's going to protect me?

Protect you from what?

...

Bottom line:

The silliness of the libertarians is that they still believe in government. If government exists then it decides (not you) what is right and what is wrong (aka legal and illegal).

Why did I say 66% and not 51%? Because that's (pretty much) what it takes to amend the US constitution. And you can amend the constitution to make it illegal to be black, or Jewish, etc.

Natural rights exist, but nobody has yet even properly identified them. And until that happens how is the average person going to begin to understand them or respect them? (Don't anybody dare quote Aquinas here: that's religion).

I was a libertarian once. For about 2 minutes, which is what it took to follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion.

So anyway, that's my point: if you accept government, then you must accept the tyranny of the majority. For, no matter what the form of government, it is always majority rule, implicitly or explicity. What government could endure without half the people's support? (The American colonies revolted with between 20% and 40% support for independence.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Historically, those "vices" were NOT linked to crime at anything like the degree they are today. The only real difference between the historical pattern and the modern pattern is the criminalization of substance abuse and prostitution -- AKA Prohibition.

This is a popular theory, but one that I would argue would not bear a great deal of scrutiny. Alcohol, for example, doesn't technically have a long track history of connection to crimes - but that's largley due to wife-beating, child abuse, and public affray amongst the "lower classes" either not having been crimes or not having been much enforced before the last century. Personally, I'd like to know how a regular heroin or crack user is likely to earn a living other than crime, given the damage done to focus, concentration, memory, and eventually sanity.

Similarly, prostitution was not outlawed in England or America until the early 1900's. There are mountains of anecdotal and stastical evidence linking it to various crimes - abuse of prostitutes by pimps, muggings, and pickpocketing the most common - for centuries before that.

Shanglan

 

[curious2c]

Vices are in one's mind. How they were raised, what they believe, what they believe in, it all goes to making whatever a vice is to a person. Some people exist who do not believe in any vices as such. To some others, reading a racy book, looking at a woman's ankles or neck could be considered a 'vice'.

Me? The only vice's I see are when someone can't see how they hurt themselves with thier beliefs. Limits or prejudice's they put on themselves or others are a vice in many ways.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't give a damn about his vices, except second hand smoke. I do give a
damn about the money I spend to maintain him and his suicidal habits. That money could be used to help people who need and want help, instead of wasting it on suicide boy. The hospital people have no choice, they are required to service suicide boy, it is the law.

What about the hospital costs for people who are overweight from eating junk food? Diabetic from too much sugar? Ill from lack of exercise?

Or people who injure themselves by engaging in risky behaviors like martial arts training or bungee jumping or motocross? Why should we have to pay for their care either?

Gymnastics is the most dangerous high school sport, and injuries can be very severe. Should we just outlaw HS gymnastics or refuse to pay for anyone injured on the rings?

You get on very mushy ground when you start talking about society's obligation to anyone who engages in risky behavior. Hospitals take the view that they're obligated to help anyone who needs help, which is probably the only defensible position to take, it seems to me.

 

[SlickTony]

How can we truly delineate which acts are really "harmless"? For instance, Britain at the moment has many prostitutes working at poverty-level rates to support gangmasters and pimps who have lured them into the country with promises of legal work. When they arrive, the "handlers" take their papers from them, leaving them alone in a foreign country with no documents, little money, and no friends. In some cases, those who resist their new circumstances are raped. While it's simple to say "investigate the crimes - theft of papers, physical threats, rape," I'd argue that under force, the prostitution itself is a crime, as the woman is an unwilling victim. And of course we're also back to #2 - some vices seem to draw crime like flies.

Shanglan

Is prostitution legal in Britain? The situation you describe, which is SOP for human traffickers everywhere, whether they are doing sex work or piecework in clandestine sweatshops, reminds me a little of the undocumented (illegal) worker we have in the States, especially agricultural workers. They work for very low wages, often have their pay held back or eaten up by bogus charges and fees, and of course it is very difficult for them to organize because if they draw any attention to themselves, they'll get deported, and they want to be here, because as miserable as their pay is, it's more than they'd be making at home.

I am not sure, anyway, that you can take the element of prostitution out of a patriarchal society, anymore than you can take the egg out of a cake when it's already mixed up.

 

[R. Richard]

What about the hospital costs for people who are overweight from eating junk food? Diabetic from too much sugar? Ill from lack of exercise?

Or people who injure themselves by engaging in risky behaviors like martial arts training or bungee jumping or motocross? Why should we have to pay for their care either?

Gymnastics is the most dangerous high school sport, and injuries can be very severe. Should we just outlaw HS gymnastics or refuse to pay for anyone injured on the rings?

You get on very mushy ground when you start talking about society's obligation to anyone who engages in risky behavior. Hospitals take the view that they're obligated to help anyone who needs help, which is probably the only defensible position to take, it seems to me.

Dr_M:
As a Kung-Fu guy I can tell you that the people who operate legitimate studios have VERY good insurance coverage. Similarly almost any high-risk sport has insurance coverage. This last is not really an option or the careing of those who direct risky sports, it is basically a necessity in order to use either public or leased facilities. [The lessor is the guy behind the operator if someone gets seriously injured.] Thus, those who engage in obviously risky behavior [at least in the US] are almost always covered by insurance.

As you point out, almost any hospital will take anyone who needs help. However, you will find that the kind of help and amount of help depend to a degree on the ability of a patient to pay. However, some people, like my example, have gamed the system and get help at the point of a [at least threatened] lawsuit.

I do not have a problem with people who find themselves in need of help they cannot afford for reasons beyond their control. I do have a problenm with people who pursue behavioral patterns that continue to place themselves in need of hospital care they cannot pay for.

We have a woman in the area where I live who is poor and has some sort of mystery ailment that the local doctors cannot figure out. There are several doctors involved with her at no cost. They want to know what is wrong with the woman so they can treat similar cases. I support such cases, even though I will eventually wind up paying the bill. [The life I save here may eventually be mine!]

I do have a problem supporting people who live a lifestyle that results in them using large amounts of medical help without payment.

 

[Weird Harold]

This is a popular theory, but one that I would argue would not bear a great deal of scrutiny. Alcohol, for example, doesn't technically have a long track history of connection to crimes - but that's largley due to wife-beating, child abuse, and public affray amongst the "lower classes" either not having been crimes or not having been much enforced before the last century. Personally, I'd like to know how a regular heroin or crack user is likely to earn a living other than crime, given the damage done to focus, concentration, memory, and eventually sanity.

I's all a matter of degree and cost.

The crimes you associate with alcohol, weren't exclusively limited to drunkeness and dont even compare to the nature and amount of OTHER crimes asociated with making alcohol illegal.

A regular Heroin user is a a late 19th century phenomenon as Heroin didn't exist until around the civil war in sufficient quantity to be commoly abused. Crack Cocaine is a strictly 20th century problem and probably wouldn't even exist without the pressure the War on Drugs creates to find new ways to get high.

An addict to the subtances that were available prior to the 19th century and were the main substances of abuse through the 19th and early 20th century -- opium (in various patent medicines as well as smoked in opium dens,) Coca leaves, marijuana, or alcohol -- could typically support his habit with day labor or menial work. A modest inheritance could support an addict for life.

As for prostitution, simply having prostitution "NOT Illegal" is better than having it illegal and and prosecuted, but having it explicitly legal and regulated has been historically an order of magnitude better.

I'm thinking specifically of examples of all three approaches from the Civil War.

Where the Union Army outlawed prostitution it just provided the black marketeers with another commodity only they could supply; the price went up and the working conditions for the prostitutes went down. Prostitutes were to be found with all of the other illegal and/or hard to get commodities provided by the criminal element.

Where the Union Army tolerated but didn't regulate or inspect prostitutes, the only reported problem was STDs and a modicum of theft or assault on both sides of the transaction.

However, Where the Union Army succumbed to momentary fits of rational solutions and not only tolerated, but closely regulated and inspected prostitutes, ALL problems -- disease, theft, assault, pimping and white-slavery -- were reduce to negligible levels.

When Prohibiton passed, the price of alcohol skyrocketed out of the easy reach of the lower classes, the quality of what could be obtained varied wildly from 200 proof home-brew to watered down "bathtub gin" contaminated with tobacco juice to give it color, strychnine to give it a kick, lead from backwoods still using auto radiators for condensers, or methyl alchohol just because amoral incompetents distilled it from the wrong ingredients.

Not to mention, the criminal gangs invented the drive-by-shooting as a tactic to gain control over more of the illegal alcohol trade and people like Al Capone became multi-millionaires.

When Drugs were made illegal, the same problems with price, quality control, adulteration, and turf wars came back with a vengeance. Not to mention tha drugs became easily available to children as young as five or six in the playgrounds of our schools -- which was NOT a significant problem prior to the "Drug War."

As for Prostitution, it's only necessary to look at Clark and Nye counties in Nevada for a modern comparison of the per capita crime rates associated with prostitution in todays world -- or at places like Amsterdam as compared to say Brussels for a comparison with similar population densities.

I wasn't around to witness Prohibition first hand, but I have lived through many of the changes brought by the "War On Drugs" as it has progressed to the current level of de facto "Prohibition."

I've watched from the sidelines as LSD escalated from fad for crazy hippies shared for free, to a major profit maker for street gangs.

I've watched as designer drugs and animal tranquilizers became popular as the price of less "harmfull" drugs got pushed up by supply and demand and the risks to the pushers in lock-step rose with the size of the effort to stop the flow of drugs.

I've watched as drug use moved from the hippy communes to the college campuses to the high-schools to the junior high schools, and down through the elementary schools all the way down to kindergarten.

Worse, I've watched the evolution of street gangs from the carefully choreographed rumbles of "West Side Story" gangs that controlled a few blocks of a city to the nationwide, multi-billion dollar gangs like the "Crips" and the "Bloods."

I've watched the cocaine trade evolve from a loose associations of peasants earning a few extra pesos by growing a half-dozen Coca plants, to the current Drug Lords and Cartels with enough money to literally pay off a national debt in exchange for non-interference and non-cooperation with the US DEA.

I've read countless news stories of deaths from overdoses caused by the uncertain strength of street drugs or from drugs deliberately "cut" with various poisons.

I've read many accounts -- often autobiographical accounts from imprisoned drug dealers -- about how they give free samples to children to get them addicted and then force them into selling drugs, prostitution or other criminal activities to get their next fix.

I've also watched as our government gets increasingly draconian laws passed to nibble way at everyone's rights under the guise of "eliminating the drug trade" -- notably seizure of assets related to a "drug bust" that aren't returned even if the suspect is found not-guilty becuse they've been sold at auction for a tenth of their value. Recovery of such assets involves lengthy court battles that are often more expensive than replacing the assets, and even if the siezure is successfully overturned, the only recovery is the proceeds from the auctions.

In short, I can't see anything but more crime resulting from legislating against what is described as "Vice" in the essay -- both in the historical record and from personal observations over my lifetime with regards specifically to drugs.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The idea of victimless crimes has always bugged me. As far as I am concerned, any behavior that neither harms nor endangers anybody but the persons involved shoult not be a crime. Above all, acts should not be crimes just because they go contrary to the religious beliefs of legislators.

If I get drunk and drive my car, I am endangering others and I should be arrested. If I get drunk and stumble my way home on foot, I am harming nobody and should not be arrested, although I have been, many times.

Prostitution, as long as the man or woman plying that trade is a consenting adult, should not be illegal, any more than being a barber, a manicurist or anybody else providing personal services should be illegal. I should be able to buy marijuana just as easily as I buy alcohol and the two recreational drugs should be treated exactly the same. The "war on drugs" is a total disaster, probably worse than Prohibition, because it has been going on longer. The only things it does is to funnel vast amounts of money, all untaxed, to criminals and ruin the lives of those who run afoul of it.

This has all been said by others, and probably said better but I wantedeto put in my nickel's worth.

 

[hydrex]

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property"

According to that definition, suicide is a vice, and curiously enough it's also a crime in some places.

 

[Weird Harold]

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property"

According to that definition, suicide is a vice, and curiously enough it's also a crime in some places.

To get even more absurd, Suicide or attempted suicide has on occasion been a CAPITAL crime! I think it was one of the pre-revolution New England colonies who actually hanged someone for for the "crime" of attempted suicide.

 

[Op_Cit]

To get even more absurd, Suicide or attempted suicide has on occasion been a CAPITAL crime! I think it was one of the pre-revolution New England colonies who actually hanged someone for for the "crime" of attempted suicide.

Actually, I think that's a great idea. A case where the state is actually being helpful.

 

[hydrex]

To get even more absurd, Suicide or attempted suicide has on occasion been a CAPITAL crime! I think it was one of the pre-revolution New England colonies who actually hanged someone for for the "crime" of attempted suicide.

LOL so then it was only capitol punishment for attempted suicide? I bet he was laughing his ass off.

 

[R. Richard]

As for prostitution, simply having prostitution "NOT Illegal" is better than having it illegal and and prosecuted, but having it explicitly legal and regulated has been historically an order of magnitude better.

I'm thinking specifically of examples of all three approaches from the Civil War.

Where the Union Army outlawed prostitution it just provided the black marketeers with another commodity only they could supply; the price went up and the working conditions for the prostitutes went down. Prostitutes were to be found with all of the other illegal and/or hard to get commodities provided by the criminal element.

Where the Union Army tolerated but didn't regulate or inspect prostitutes, the only reported problem was STDs and a modicum of theft or assault on both sides of the transaction.

However, Where the Union Army succumbed to momentary fits of rational solutions and not only tolerated, but closely regulated and inspected prostitutes, ALL problems -- disease, theft, assault, pimping and white-slavery -- were reduce to negligible levels.

Good analysis!

In Italy prostitution has been illegal for a long time, but there were always brothels and they were kept under pretty good control by the police. A woman was elected to parliament and kept her campaign promise to REALLY outlaw brothels.

The brothels closed. The prostitutes, having no other choice, went back to work on the streets. The problems you cite, disease, theft, assault, pimping and white-slavery came back with a vengeance. Plus, the prostitutes froze their merchandise off working the streets in winter.

The prostitutes went to the woman lawmaker and begged her to let them have their safe, clean, warm brothels back. The woman was appalled at the damage she had done and tried to legalize brothels. However, parliament would not pass the legislation as no politician wanted to admit that he supported nasty, evil prostitution.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Good analysis!

In Italy prostitution has been illegal for a long time, but there were always brothels and they were kept under pretty good control by the police. A woman was elected to parliament and kept her campaign promise to REALLY outlaw brothels.

The brothels closed. The prostitutes, having no other choice, went back to work on the streets. The problems you cite, disease, theft, assault, pimping and white-slavery came back with a vengeance. Plus, the prostitutes froze their merchandise off working the streets in winter.

The prostitutes went to the woman lawmaker and begged her to let them have their safe, clean, warm brothels back. The woman was appalled at the damage she had done and tried to legalize brothels. However, parliament would not pass the legislation as no politician wanted to admit that he supported nasty, evil prostitution.

This is pretty much what will always happen when you outlaw vices. People will still want the sex, drugs, gambling, booze, or whatever, and will go to illegal sources. This will increase prices, decrease the quality of the product or service, enrich criminals, promote contempt of the law, eliminate taxes collected on the illegal products or from the vendors thereof, injure the persons providing the service, such as prostitutes, and do nobody any good. It is always hard to repeal such laws because nobody in the legislature wants to vote in such a way as to seem to be in favor of the outlawed product or service. Repeal of Prohibition in the 1930's was an exception because alcohol had been so popular and widespread before, and the negatives were so obvious. They still are obvious but not so much so. At least in some places the laws against certain sex acts among consulting adults are no longer illegal. Anal and oral sex were illegal, even in California until the seventies.

 

[Weird Harold]

In Italy prostitution has been illegal for a long time, but there were always brothels and they were kept under pretty good control by the police. A woman was elected to parliament and kept her campaign promise to REALLY outlaw brothels.

One of the problems with outlawing something like a brothel, is in how you define what a "brothel is."

In one of the recent threads on "dumb laws that are still on the books" someone cited a law that technically makes a college dormitory for women a "brothel" because it defines a "brothel" as "five or more unwed, unrelated women living under the same roof"

Prohibition never works, and regulation and taxation can often produce the same effects on a lesser scale.

I haven't researched to see if there are any hard numbers, but the recent push over thelast few decades to "tax and regulate tobaco into oblivion" has been accompanied by an increse in headlines like "Truckload of Cigarettes Hijacked," "cigarette smuggling ring broken up," and the like. That may be the result of increased interest and reporting or it may be the result of an actual increase in crime releated to the increased profitablility of dealing in untaxed tobaco. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a proper study of the issue proved the latter to be the case.

The evidence is out there and isn't hard to find, to support the theory that prohibition and/or over-regulation of "vice" does nothing but exacerbate the problem purportedly being "solved" or create other problems that then need to be "solved."

Prohibition has the additiona drawback of also removing a potential source of revenue because you can't tax something that is illegal.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Prohibition has the additiona drawback of also removing a potential source of revenue because you can't tax something that is illegal.

Actually, you sometimes can. In California, whenever a raid on some illegal drug warehouse is made, there is always somebody from the State Board of Equalization there to grab as much cash as they can, under the premise that sales of the drugs, although illegal, were taxable and the sellers owe sales tax.

 

[Weird Harold]

Actually, you sometimes can. In California, whenever a raid on some illegal drug warehouse is made, there is always somebody from the State Board of Equalization there to grab as much cash as they can, under the premise that sales of the drugs, slthough illegal, were taxable and the sellers owe sales tax.

Income is income and sales are sales whether the source of the income is legal or not. Al Capone was finally taken out of circulation for not paying income tax, and many prostitutes religiously report their income and pay income taxes.

But those aren't "taxes on something illegal" they're blanket taxes that apply to all income and all sales. The Government is still missing out on the surtaxes, excise taxes and licensing fees that would directly apply to the illegal substances or activities.

It isnt a high sales taxes that make hijacking a truckload of cigarettes worth the risk, it's the specific "tobaco tax" that makes it profitable. It isn't sales taxes that make bootlegging and moonshining highly profitable, it's the federal alcohol taxes where the profit margin lies.

It's difficult to write a law that says, "this is illegal, but if you do indulge anyway, you have to pay a special tax on it," without a) being obviously hypocritical and b) tacitly admitting that you can't actually ban it effectively in the first place.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Consider:

• smoking laws
• corportat policy on peronal lives (ie smoking)- and does this apply?
• prostitution
• gambling
• etc...

Oh yeah and I forgot:

• porn

 

[Amy Sweet]

And of course we're also back to #2 - some vices seem to draw crime like flies.

Shanglan

Well, yes, illegal activities draw more illegal activies. However, if *prostitution* were legalized, other laws could be enacted to protect all involved. And it would ultimatly be safer, because no matter what the laws, you're never going to stamp out prostitution.

Pandering and Pimping on the other hand certainly should be illegal. Certain guidelines could be set up for legitamate 'managers' so that their employees would be treated fairly and have legal recourse. And also, it would only be lawful for a manager to take a certain percentage of your proffits. They couldn't just rape you, beat you up, take it all and tell you to get your ass back out on the street. Or at least, if they did, you would then have somewhere to turn to be protected from that.

Keeping Vices illegal makes them more dangerous, and more profitable and therefor, as you said, draws other crimes like flies. The prohibition of alchohol increased lawlessness rather than decreasing it. One could argue the same for the illegalization (and maintaining illegalization) of other vices.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Income is income and sales are sales whether the source of the income is legal or not. Al Capone was finally taken out of circulation for not paying income tax, and many prostitutes religiously report their income and pay income taxes.

But those aren't "taxes on something illegal" they're blanket taxes that apply to all income and all sales. The Government is still missing out on the surtaxes, excise taxes and licensing fees that would directly apply to the illegal substances or activities.

It isnt a high sales taxes that make hijacking a truckload of cigarettes worth the risk, it's the specific "tobaco tax" that makes it profitable. It isn't sales taxes that make bootlegging and moonshining highly profitable, it's the federal alcohol taxes where the profit margin lies.

It's difficult to write a law that says, "this is illegal, but if you do indulge anyway, you have to pay a special tax on it," without a) being obviously hypocritical and b) tacitly admitting that you can't actually ban it effectively in the first place.

I know all that but sometimes a government unit can collect something. For instance, I am fairly sure the IRS grabbed some or most of Capone's assets when he was convicted and California gets some of what the drug dealers have taken in.

Like you, and probably most of the people in the AH, I have nothing good to say about making vices illegal. It costs tons of money to enforce the stupid laws and to incarcerate those who break them. There are more tons of money lost when governments can't tax the sales of the products and/or the profits made on the sales or services and products. Besides that, there is the billions in loss of productivity from those who are in jails or prisons for doing nothing that hurt or endangered anybody. You would have thought that Prohibition would have taught the government a lesson but some persons are too stupin or myopic to learn from history.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I find it highly agreeable that drugs are illegal and prostitution is a crime.