Are Vices Crimes?

[sweetnpetite]

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.

Sorry, Doc, we can't see you in the ER today. It says here that you got out of bed this morning. Don't you know, this is risky behavior?

I agree with you totally (in this post that is, lol).

 

[Weird Harold]

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

So do a lot of other people -- It's probably the only thing that popes, preachers, pimps and pushers can agree on, if for differing reasons.

Agreement with something that doesn't work, never has worked, and probably never will work doesn't change the correlation between legislating against vices and and the profitiblility of crime.

 

[Boxlicker101]

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

Admittedly, people can hurt themselves by using illegal drugs, but no more than by using tobacco and alcohol, which are not illegal. Marijuana is basically harmless, moreso than alcohol, although the two are similar in purpose. But why prostitution?

Prostitutes provide a service that is very much in demand and has been for as long as humanoids or humans have existed. Having sexual intercourse is a very natural thing to do and the only reason it is illegal is because some persons are enterprising enough to charge money to be sex partners. Whatever harm results is because of the illegality.

Street hookers are a nuisance but if there were legal brothels, the hookers would be out of business. Nobody is going to patronize them if he can go to a place where he has more choice, much less chance of catching an STD, less chance of being mugged or arrested or any of the other things that can happen.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Agreement with something that doesn't work, never has worked, and probably never will work doesn't change the correlation between legislating against vices and and the profitiblility of crime.

I don't think its evidentary that it is something that doesn't work, never has worked, and probably never will work... I think, in a nutshell, that's a really HUGE proposition (or series of propositions) that is difficult (if possible at all) to prove not just accurate but true.

Admittedly, people can hurt themselves by using illegal drugs, but no more than by using tobacco and alcohol, which are not illegal. Marijuana is basically harmless, moreso than alcohol, although the two are similar in purpose. But why prostitution?

I have to disagree with this on principle and substance... I don't think "using illegal drugs" is as and only as harmful as "using tobacco and alcohol". The laundary list of illegal drugs is pretty long, and includes things that I cannot begin to understand being equal in hazard to cigarettes.

Prostitutes provide a service that is very much in demand and has been for as long as humanoids or humans have existed. Having sexual intercourse is a very natural thing to do and the only reason it is illegal is because some persons are enterprising enough to charge money to be sex partners. Whatever harm results is because of the illegality.

I think it's illegal for more reasons than "some persons are enterprising enough to charge money". And the harm that comes from prostitution (or a better way to put it might be "the harm that has come from instances of prostitution") have more to blame than just it's being illegal.

Basically, you're making interesting propositions--and I'd love to see how they actually fit into the problem (as a big picture)--but I think you're oversimplifying.

 

[sweetnpetite]

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

I would find it hightly agreeable if lots of things were illegal. Like cell phones or being really really logical all the time )) But just because I would find it agreeable, doesn't mean they *should* be illegal. That's a different argument.

I also would add that drug lords and pimps also find it agreeable that drugs and prostitution are illegal crimes. Oh yes, they find it quite agreeable.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I would find it hightly agreeable if lots of things were illegal. Like cell phones or being really really logical all the time )) But just because I would find it agreeable, doesn't mean they *should* be illegal. That's a different argument.

I also would add that drug lords and pimps also find it agreeable that drugs and prostitution are illegal crimes. Oh yes, they find it quite agreeable.

...and if one is finding something agreeable on the grounds of it being good for them, good for others, morally, ethically, socially, and essentially positive as compared to its contrapositive, at the least, and alternatives, at the best, then it's being agreeable is an endorsement of rightness and goodness.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Basically, you're making interesting propositions--and I'd love to see how they actually fit into the problem (as a big picture)--but I think you're oversimplifying.

But at least he's making some propositions and actually saying something, rather than just disagreeing. He's made an argument and all you've really said is 'nu-uh." If you'd just support your disagreements with something-- even an oppinion it would be far more productive than just saying over and over in a fancy way, "this isn't true, nor is this."

And lastly, I think it's ok to 'oversimplify' once in a while. Or at least simplify. Everything doesn't have to be a grad-school thesis backed w/ every possible caviat and possiblity. It would be nice if occasionally, you gave a simple but simply thourough answer that was more than "I don't agree. That can't be proven, ect."

 

[sweetnpetite]

...and if one is finding something agreeable on the grounds of it being good for them, good for others, morally, ethically, socially, and essentially positive as compared to its contrapositive, at the least, and alternatives, at the best, then it's being agreeable is an endorsement of rightness and goodness.

As you might say, "I disagree." Strongly.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

But at least he's making some propositions and actually saying something, rather than just disagreeing. He's made an argument and all you've really said is 'nu-uh." If you'd just support your disagreements with something-- even an oppinion it would be far more productive than just saying over and over in a fancy way, "this isn't true, nor is this."

So... instead of me saying "nuh-uh", you'd prefer I said something like "I don't think 'using illegal drugs' is as and only as harmful as 'using tobacco and alcohol'. The laundary list of illegal drugs is pretty long, and includes things that I cannot begin to understand being equal in hazard to cigarettes."?
An opinion like that?

And lastly, I think it's ok to 'oversimplify' once in a while. Or at least simplify. Everything doesn't have to be a grad-school thesis backed w/ every possible caviat and possiblity. It would be nice if occasionally, you gave a simple but simply thourough answer that was more than "I don't agree. That can't be proven, ect."

I think oversimplification is a genuine hazard to accuracy (by definition) and a potential one to the discovery solutions to a great many problems--it leads to "teach abstinence" when talking about teen pregnancies or "make guns harder to get" when talking about violent crime. As for an answer that's more than "I don't agree. That can't be proven.", I would be delighted to quote myself if you cannot see where that has already happened.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As you might say, "I disagree." Strongly.

Which is strange... because the proposition itself, is little more than "if someone is finding a thing agreeable because they believe the thing right, then they are doing so as a personal endorsement of the thing". What about that do you truly disagree with? That's just... how it is. Please, how is this a thing that is "disagreeable"?

 

[sweetnpetite]

...and if one is finding something agreeable on the grounds of it being good for them, good for others, morally, ethically, socially, and essentially positive as compared to its contrapositive, at the least, and alternatives, at the best, then it's being agreeable is an endorsement of rightness and goodness.

If prostitution and drugs are imoral, so are sex and medicine. Therefore, they also should be made illegal. Both have a potential for abuse and social harm.

And who gets to decide on what is moral?

Half of all violent crimes involve alchohol. Is it morally, socially, ethically wrong to drink? Even amoung christians, many sects believe that drinking alchohol is immoral and some don't.

I went to a church were dancing, attending the movie theature and playing w/ playing cards were considered imoral activies. Niether were they considered to be 'good for you' but were harmful to body and soul. Should these activies be illegal? Perhaps it should be illegal not to fill all of your time with 'rightness and goodness.' Anything that does not contribute to your spiritual and physical improvement shall be punishable.

"...and if one is finding something agreeable on the grounds of it being good for them, good for others, morally, ethically, socially, and essentially positive as compared to its contrapositive, at the least, and alternatives, at the best, then it's being agreeable is an endorsement of rightness and goodness."

To quote you again- Hey, you're on to something- that would make a great argument to make porn illegal.

 

[Op_Cit]

As you might say, "I disagree." Strongly.

So where and how do you (SnP) draw the line?

The word "vice" is one of those words with broad connotations with little aspects open for interpretation. So let's go back to the issue of harm instead.

Assuming you hold causing harm to another a requirement of a just legal restriction, do you also include "potential to harm" in that definition?

(Where I'm going is, if you criticize Joe for his line in the sand--and perhaps his undefined method of drawing the line--, what is yours?)

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't think its evidentary that it is something that doesn't work, never has worked, and probably never will work... I think, in a nutshell, that's a really HUGE proposition (or series of propositions) that is difficult (if possible at all) to prove not just accurate but true.

It may be difficult to prove the proposition true, but It seems to me that it should be fairly simple to prove it false.

All it would take is just ONE example where outlawing something unquestionbly solved a problem without creating any ancillary problems to replace the original problem.

I've provided several anecdotal cases to demostrate my point. How about providing JUST ONE factual and uneqivocable anecdote to disprove the thesis? Something where the the prohibition and only the prohibition was effective.

 

[sweetnpetite]

So... instead of me saying "nuh-uh", you'd prefer I said something like "I don't think 'using illegal drugs' is as and only as harmful as 'using tobacco and alcohol'. The laundary list of illegal drugs is pretty long, and includes things that I cannot begin to understand being equal in hazard to cigarettes."?
An opinion like that?

No. Because you haven't said what any of thise things are or why they are not equal in hazard or why them being inequal in hazard is a reason they should be illegal.

Another example: "I think it's illegal for more reasons than "some persons are enterprising enough to charge money".

A better argument might be giving some good reasons why for it to be ilegal, since you think that it should be. And then actually making an argement for it. I didn't see that there. You've barely even refuted his argment, let alone put forth one of your own.

Maybe your tired. Who knows.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Admittedly, people can hurt themselves by using illegal drugs, but no more than by using tobacco and alcohol, which are not illegal. Marijuana is basically harmless, moreso than alcohol, although the two are similar in purpose. But why prostitution?


I have to disagree with this on principle and substance... I don't think "using illegal drugs" is as and only as harmful as "using tobacco and alcohol". The laundary list of illegal drugs is pretty long, and includes things that I cannot begin to understand being equal in hazard to cigarettes.

Drugs are dangerous because they are illegal. If heroin, morphine, cocaine, MJ or other drugs were processed properly, using safe additives, and apportioned into controlled dosages before being sold in a local pharmacy or similar place, they would be much less dangerous. Some of them would be addictive, but no more than tobacco. They could be dangerous but only if the user overdosed on them, and this would be a deliberate act. Sales of such drugs would be controlled, much like sales of alcohol or tobacco. This wouldn't be perfect and violations would happen but they would be less frequent than the violations that happen now.

Personally, I don't use anything, even alcohol, but that is my choice and it should be everybody's choice.

I also contend that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and I can give you a long list of reasons. This is not to say that people should use either drug. It is to say that there should be a choice.


Quote:
Prostitutes provide a service that is very much in demand and has been for as long as humanoids or humans have existed. Having sexual intercourse is a very natural thing to do and the only reason it is illegal is because some persons are enterprising enough to charge money to be sex partners. Whatever harm results is because of the illegality.


I think it's illegal for more reasons than "some persons are enterprising enough to charge money". And the harm that comes from prostitution (or a better way to put it might be "the harm that has come from instances of prostitution") have more to blame than just it's being illegal.

Basically, you're making interesting propositions--and I'd love to see how they actually fit into the problem (as a big picture)--but I think you're oversimplifying.

It is only prostitution if there is money or other consideration involved. If a woman approaches me on the street and suggests that we should go and fuck, and we do, and both enjoy it and no money or anything else is given to either of us or by either of us, no act of prostitution has occurred and nobody gets arrested. If she charges me or I charge her, that would be prostitution and illegal. It's the money or other consideratioin thqat makes it illegal.

You ought to learn to write more clearly, or edit what you say. I can't understand what your next sentence means.

 

[sweetnpetite]

So where and how do you (SnP) draw the line?

The word "vice" is one of those words with broad connotations with little aspects open for interpretation. So let's go back to the issue of harm instead.

Assuming you hold causing harm to another a requirement of a just legal restriction, do you also include "potential to harm" in that definition?

(Where I'm going is, if you criticize Joe for his line in the sand--and perhaps his undefined method of drawing the line--, what is yours?)

If I understand your question correctly, my line is something like this:

If you want to get high that's fine. If you want to assault someone while you are high, that is assault. If you want to rob someone for drug money, that's robbery. In other words, drinking drugging and whoring are not excuses to hurt someone else or deprive them of their rights. If you can do these things without hurting anyone or depriving them of a right (life, liberty, limb) then your actions should not be illegal. For example: Drinking and driving is illegal. Drinking is not. Even though drinking could lead to illegal activity, it could also lead to laying around and passing out with no harm to anyone. Opporating a motor vehicle while impared, however is another matter. The fact that drinking is legal does not excuse taking the illegal action of trying to drive while in an impared state, nor does that fact that many people do try to drive in an impared state make drinking something that should be illegal.

 

[Op_Cit]

If you want to get high that's fine. If you want to assault someone while you are high, that is assault. If you want to rob someone for drug money, that's robbery. In other words, drinking drugging and whoring are not excuses to hurt someone else or deprive them of their rights. If you can do these things without hurting anyone or depriving them of a right (life, liberty, limb) then your actions should not be illegal. For example: Drinking and driving is illegal. Drinking is not. Even though drinking could lead to illegal activity, it could also lead to laying around and passing out with no harm to anyone. Opporating a motor vehicle while impared, however is another matter. The fact that drinking is legal does not excuse taking the illegal action of trying to drive while in an impared state, nor does that fact that many people do try to drive in an impared state make drinking something that should be illegal.

OK, you made a little jump over a very wide gap there without connecting it:

"Driving while impaired" is the potential to do harm, because until such time as you actually hit someone/thing, no harm takes place.

You did not state whether you find it a valid/just to legally restrict someone from the "potential to do harm". Do you accept "potential to harm" as a just restriction on an individual?

 

[Weird Harold]

You did not state whether you find it a valid/just to legally restrict someone from the "potential to do harm". Do you accept "potential to harm" as a just restriction on an individual?

I think there is a distinction between "probable harm" and "potential harm" as well as a distinction between "a danger to others" and a "potential danger."

A drunk behind the wheel, or someone high on PCP on a crowded dance floor, are "a danger to others" because of the "probable harm" they will do, as surely as firing a submachine gun on a busy street is even if nothing bad happens as a result -- this time.

I think it is reasonable to restrict activities that present "a probable danger" to others. Depending on the severity of the danger to others, that can and should be to "potential harm" as well.

There is "a potential harm" in a neighbor owning a gun, but a very low potential unless the neighbor deliberately and consciously decides to increase the potential -- like using a chain link fence as a backstop for target practice.

There is a high "potential harm" if my neighbor is running a illegal meth lab or alcohol still which might explode or flood the neigborhood with a toxic gas -- the potential for a large amount of harm to innocent bystanders is inherent in the process and largely independent of the neighbor's intent or decisions.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The crimes you associate with alcohol, weren't exclusively limited to drunkeness

Absolutely. But I fail to see that that makes a difference.

and dont even compare to the nature and amount of OTHER crimes asociated with making alcohol illegal.

This, however, is staggeringly inaccurate.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It may be difficult to prove the proposition true, but It seems to me that it should be fairly simple to prove it false.

Which is fine... but as the asserter in a given discussion of an assertion, the burden of proof is on you to show how it never has and never will and all that. Asserting "X never works, never worked, never will work, and is not working" requires an understanding of the history of "X" and some formula, device, or vehicle for concluding it "never" being so. Like I said, that's a really big proposition... how is it you know that it never has and never will be a solution?

And, keep in mind, that requiring a "perfect solution" as refutation of your absolute point is not very realistic based on the nature of causation and logical possibility (which would hold that I don't know all the variables of any given situation such that I can prevent all logically possible outcomes or problems, denying me and you and everyone else the ability to hypothesize a solution that has absolutely no possible "ancillary problems"--even legalizing drugs has ancillary logically possible problems). I think a better thing to ask for is something that was a "sufficient solution"--or a solution that, while having ancillary problems, ultimately handled the problem in such a way as it could be developed into either lesser problems or greater goods.

in that case, I pick "slavery in the US".

Drugs are dangerous because they are illegal. If heroin, morphine, cocaine, MJ or other drugs were processed properly, using safe additives, and apportioned into controlled dosages before being sold in a local pharmacy or similar place, they would be much less dangerous. Some of them would be addictive, but no more than tobacco. They could be dangerous but only if the user overdosed on them, and this would be a deliberate act. Sales of such drugs would be controlled, much like sales of alcohol or tobacco. This wouldn't be perfect and violations would happen but they would be less frequent than the violations that happen now.

I have to maintain that drugs are dangerous because they impair sensation, judgement, motor function, and certain essential biological processes--that they are illegal is not why they are dangerous, but vice-versa. I have little to say about the potential "legal future utopia" of drugs--I neither know how safe they would be in this "fictitious future of regulation and control" nor can argue the statistics or likelihoods of events in the "possible future system" (mostly because in that it is not actualized, we can debate all day long about why it would be safer or not safer or regulated or less regulated or how many kids would use or how many wouldn't... it's all pure assumption).

I also contend that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and I can give you a long list of reasons. This is not to say that people should use either drug. It is to say that there should be a choice.

I have nothing intelligent to say about the danger-potential of marijuana versus the danger-potential of alcohol.

It is only prostitution if there is money or other consideration involved. If a woman approaches me on the street and suggests that we should go and fuck, and we do, and both enjoy it and no money or anything else is given to either of us or by either of us, no act of prostitution has occurred and nobody gets arrested. If she charges me or I charge her, that would be prostitution and illegal. It's the money or other consideratioin thqat makes it illegal.

You said "the only reason it is illegal is because some persons are enterprising enough to charge money".

At some point, prostitution was decided (whether actively or passively is independant of the point) as a thing that was illegal to do. The reasons why this thing was to be illegal were likely religious, moral, medical, sociological, cultural, etc... you said that the ONLY reason that it is illegal is that some people are enterprising enough to charge money. I maintain that there are OTHER reasons (ranging from "God says its wrong" to "it spreads disease" to "population control") why it is remains illegal.

Now, you are saying that it is considered to be different than sex in general because it is paid for--which is true... but that is not why it is illegal, that is merely a component of the illegal thing's nature. It'd be like saying that "the only reason rape is illegal is because some people want sex despite what the other people want"--that'd be a part of what rape is, but it's not why its illegal.

You ought to learn to write more clearly, or edit what you say. I can't understand what your next sentence means.

I endeavor to write as conceptually clear as possible to avoid implication and the flouting of basic maxims of language.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

No. Because you haven't said what any of thise things are or why they are not equal in hazard or why them being inequal in hazard is a reason they should be illegal.

Another example: "I think it's illegal for more reasons than "some persons are enterprising enough to charge money".

A better argument might be giving some good reasons why for it to be ilegal, since you think that it should be. And then actually making an argement for it. I didn't see that there. You've barely even refuted his argment, let alone put forth one of your own.

Maybe your tired. Who knows.

I haven't been trying to "refute" anything. Just offering up very democratic responses to very bold statements of absolution. For that matter, you say I should provide reasons in greater detail, but really... that's all I'm asking of anyone else (and it seems to get your panties in a wad when I do).

If necessary though, I'll say "heroin and crack coccaine" for the first one and "because some people feel it is immoral and some people feel it spreads disease" for the second.

 

[Boxlicker101]

OK, you made a little jump over a very wide gap there without connecting it:

"Driving while impaired" is the potential to do harm, because until such time as you actually hit someone/thing, no harm takes place.

You did not state whether you find it a valid/just to legally restrict someone from the "potential to do harm". Do you accept "potential to harm" as a just restriction on an individual?

If I am performing a certain act and that act has a high potential to do harm to others, it should be illegal. If I am drunk and am driving my car, there is a highpotential to do harm and I should be arrested. If I start shooting my gun into a crowd of people, there is a very large possibility that someone will be harmed and I should be arrested. If I own a viscious dog and let him run loose on the street, there is a strong possibility that somebody will be harmed and I should be arrested.

At the same time, if I am drunk and walking on the street, the potential for harm to anybody is miniscule. I own a car and there is a possibility that I will get drunk and drive it but, unless there is evidence that I have a penchant for doing so, I should be able to retain ownership. I sm allowed to own a gun unless I have been shown to tend to use a gun in committing violent crimes. I can own a viscious dog and, as long as I keep him away from the public, I am hurting nobody nor am I violating anybody else's rights.

In other words, just having the potential to do harm should not be illegal but actually doing something that might do harm, or negligently allowing something to happen that might do harm should be illegal.

 

[Op_Cit]

I think there is a distinction between "probable harm" and "potential harm" as well as a distinction between "a danger to others" and a "potential danger."

Yes, but do you recognize the natural divide? The natural boundary crossed from "harm" to "potential"?

I'm not (right now) trying to make you say it's not OK to cross that line, but instead, I'm hoping some of you will recognize that it is a fundamental divide.

I think it would be relatively easy to get a room full of people to see that distinction (not agree not to cross it, but all recognize where that line is). Yet, once you cross that divide, everything is open to interpretation, personal preference/judgement. You may think that there is an obvious probability of harm with someone drinking and driving, yet what of the potential for harm of a driver from Florida driving in snow for the first time ever?

So everybody gets up in arms and bounces around off of each other on the issue of (as you define it) what separates potential and probable. But where is the natural, clear, objective divide between those two? There is not one, it's all a matter of opinion.

One might make a great argument that weed should be legal, but what of PCP? (Commonly assumed to make you go out of your mind and attack police.)

You could spend an eternity in a room full of people and never get them all to decide in the same manner on examples of "potential" and "probable". This makes it not a natural or objectve distinction. You will be at each other's throats eventually trying to pound your definition into the others.

So, now we're back into the realm of religion: person A believe this, and B believes that. Person A is so certain of his position that Person B must be insane or some kind of zealot nutcase.

From where I stand you, Snp, and Joe are all on the same side of the issue. Why beat each other up so much on the issue?

If I believed in government, my solution would be only harm constitutes an infraction. Go ahead and drive while drunk and if you hit someone, it is attempted homicide or 2nd/1st degree murder. Hit someone while not impared yet still at fault and it would be aggrevated assault.

I think if SnP continues reading Schaffer's stuff she'll find that's his position as well.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

From where I stand you, Snp, and Joe are all on the same side of the issue. Why beat each other up so much on the issue?

My side of the issue is only as difficult as "we are not presented with the perfect solution, and so must handle the matter in terms of what is sufficient... which, as a matter of gradations of 'dangerous' is hard to nail down, ultimately resting on invidual opinion for the time being" and "statements of absolution are hard to prove".

 

[Weird Harold]

in that case, I pick "slavery in the US".

Aside from the fact that Slavery is a "Crime" and not a "Vice," which is what this discussion is supposedly about, the prohibition of Slavery in the US had a good many bad effects (which persist even today) and has, in fact, NOT eliminated slavery in the US, but relegated slavery to the province and control of criminals.

Further, the prohibition of slavery in the US was an effect of social changes and not the cause of social changes and it was the social changes that truly eliminated legal slavery in the US.


You can play ivory tower word games about who has the burden of proof all you like, but the historical record and current events have far more examples of the prohibition of "vice" NOT working than they have of Prohibition of vice working -- if there are any, which I've never seen and never expect to see. IF any examples of prohibition working exist, they're vanishingly rare from what I can see.