Are Vices Crimes?

[Joe Wordsworth]

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.

Oh, I don't know about that... Surely, before it was illegal, it was a vice--a moral weakness, an unethical indulgeance? I think the outlawing of slavery has done an admirable job reducing and eliminating the amount of slavery that goes on in the US--even in the face of social issues and complications that arose. That's why I brought up a need to draw a line between "perfect solution" and "sufficient solution"... because I can't think of anything, socially speaking, that has ever been perfectly solved without some problems stemming from it. I think slavery being outlawed fills the role of "sufficient solution' in the form of a prohibition.

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.

Could be, could be not. I don't really know. But I know that some people gave up being slave owners because it was illegal.

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.

Oh, it has nothing to do with "ivory tower"-ness. You said that prohibiting things had NEVER worked before, and ISN'T working now, and NEVER will work in the future and whatnot. That's hard to prove. Defending it as true because nobody has proved it false is just bad reasoning and saying nothing for your position in the way of justification.

Basic logic.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh, I don't know about that... Surely, before it was illegal, it was a vice--a moral weakness, an unethical indulgeance?

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In the context of this thread discussing the relevance of the definitions of vice and crime, I think slavery is definitely a "Crime" and not a "Vice."

That's why I brought up a need to draw a line between "perfect solution" and "sufficient solution"... because I can't think of anything, socially speaking, that has ever been perfectly solved without some problems stemming from it.

A simple yes or no question: Is the current "War on Drugs" and associated prohibitions a "sufficient solution" in your opinion?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weird Harold
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.

Oh, I don't know about that... Surely, before it was illegal, it was a vice--a moral weakness, an unethical indulgeance? I think the outlawing of slavery has done an admirable job reducing and eliminating the amount of slavery that goes on in the US--even in the face of social issues and complications that arose. That's why I brought up a need to draw a line between "perfect solution" and "sufficient solution"... because I can't think of anything, socially speaking, that has ever been perfectly solved without some problems stemming from it. I think slavery being outlawed fills the role of "sufficient solution' in the form of a prohibition.

Slavery now is illegal and so to hold somebody in involuntary servitude is a crime. It does happen but it is a crime, not a vice, since it is harming others and interfering with their freedom. When it was legal, it was still not a vice because it involved harm to other persons. There probably were vices associated with it but the ownership itself was an economic strategy and the vice may have been a side benefit.


Quote:
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.

Could be, could be not. I don't really know. But I know that some people gave up being slave owners because it was illegal.

I have to agree with Joe here that slavery essentially ended because it became illegal. Also, defining the American Civil War as a "social changes" seems ludicrous. I will admit, though, that the drive to eliminate slavery was a social change and it was a major cause of the war.

Quote:
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.

Oh, it has nothing to do with "ivory tower"-ness. You said that prohibiting things had NEVER worked before, and ISN'T working now, and NEVER will work in the future and whatnot. That's hard to prove. Defending it as true because nobody has proved it false is just bad reasoning and saying nothing for your position in the way of justification. Basic logic

I have to agree with Harold here even though it is impossible to prove this absolutely. As far as I know, prohibiting a vice has only driven it underground and has created grester problems. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of this and none to the contrary. Even so, there is no absolute proof one way or the other.

Probably the most striking examples are Prohibition of alcohol in the US and the current drug laws, especially that against marijuana. Tobacco has never been prohibited, although it has been severely restricted. This seems to be working because the percentage of smokers is smaller than it was fifty years ago. Eventually, maybe nobody will smoke but that seems unlikely.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

In the context of this thread discussing the relevance of the definitions of vice and crime, I think slavery is definitely a "Crime" and not a "Vice."

I think the context of the thread demands an excellent definition of what a vice would be--very relavent. Slavery, if we accept that it was a practice about possessions (and human beings as them), could well have been a "vice". The abuse of a substance, an object, things, possessions--it fits nicely, even, in the actual definition of "vice".

But, yeah, slavery is a crime--no problems there. I must be missing your point in the sentance you posted.

A simple yes or no question: Is the current "War on Drugs" and associated prohibitions a "sufficient solution" in your opinion?

A simple yes or no question for you (as you asserted a truth first and I've been trying to get the answers about it): "How is it necessarily true that prohibition as a practice, in general, never has worked AND isn't working AND never will work?" (the last part being the hardest to grasp, as it is surely logically possible)

To answer your question, though, I have to break it up because I don't know exactly what you mean by "associated prohibitions" and to generally answer for all possible "associated prohibitions" might mean I answer for something that simple doesn't work at all that I didn't know about. So, I'll answer the more clear question of "Is the current 'War on Drugs' a 'sufficient solution'?"

No. I don't think it is. I think there is much more we could be doing on the international scale to curb (by declared prohibition and enacted enforcement) narcotics being available to the people. That, in and of itself, though, is hardly the same thing as saying "prohibiting things never ever works and never ever could/might/will work"--which is just rationally silly.

 

[Weird Harold]

A simple yes or no question for you (as you asserted a truth first and I've been trying to get the answers about it): "How is it necessarily true that prohibition as a practice, in general, never has worked AND isn't working AND never will work?" (the last part being the hardest to grasp, as it is surely logically possible)
...
No. I don't think it is. I think there is much more we could be doing on the international scale to curb (by declared prohibition and enacted enforcement) narcotics being available to the people. That, in and of itself, though, is hardly the same thing as saying "prohibiting things never ever works and never ever could/might/will work"--which is just rationally silly.

It is an observable phenomenon in the historical record, and in current events, that prohibiting, banning, or outlawing something the public wants, will not prevent them from obaining it. Examinatin of the reasons it hasn't and doesn't work leads to a logical conclusion that until and unless humn nature changes, it cannot work inthe future.

Your assertion "I think there is much more we could be doing on the international scale to curb (by declared prohibition and enacted enforcement) narcotics being available to the people," is a pretty fair (if simplistic) description of the process that resulted in the "Opium wars" between Britain and China, and contra-indicated by the history of the Drug War in my lifetime.

Since the 1950's the US government has escalated from campaigns against domestic use and sales of drugs to campaigns against importation, all the way up to military actions by US troops in foreign countries to (impose US laws on foreign nationals) and there has been just one result:

More drugs on the street.

The price has gone up on the drugs that used to be readily availble, but they are just as available if not more. There are NEW drugs on the streets that either did't exist, or were not commonly used before the campaign to outlaw drugs item by item on a list made alternatives to the specificlly banned drugs attractive.

After all, why get busted for cocaine when exstacy isn't on the banned substances list yet? Refined cocaine getting too expensive, then buy "crack" cocaine and smoke it instead of snorting it.

These are all things I've observed happen in my lifetime, and I can't see where excalating the attempt to impose US drug laws on the rest of the world is going to have any different effect than the esclations over the past forty+ years have had: more drugs availble, in both quantity and kind, to more people, of all ages, under the complete control of amoral criminals.

In the 1950's and 60's, before the current "War on Drugs" got under way a major drug bust was maybe a pound of marijuana or a couple of Kilos of refined Cocaine. Now, forty-plus years later, a drug bust generally doesn't make the news unless TONS of drugs are involved.

I can't see where excalating and exporting a failed strategy is going to improve things, but I can see the logical conclusion that the observable correlation of escalating crime and drug use will continue to follow the esclation of prohibitions and enforcement efforts as it has in the past.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It is an observable phenomenon in the historical record, and in current events, that prohibiting, banning, or outlawing something the public wants, will not prevent them from obaining it. Examinatin of the reasons it hasn't and doesn't work leads to a logical conclusion that until and unless humn nature changes, it cannot work inthe future.

Your assertion "I think there is much more we could be doing on the international scale to curb (by declared prohibition and enacted enforcement) narcotics being available to the people," is a pretty fair (if simplistic) description of the process that resulted in the "Opium wars" between Britain and China, and contra-indicated by the history of the Drug War in my lifetime.

Since the 1950's the US government has escalated from campaigns against domestic use and sales of drugs to campaigns against importation, all the way up to military actions by US troops in foreign countries to (impose US laws on foreign nationals) and there has been just one result:

More drugs on the street.

The price has gone up on the drugs that used to be readily availble, but they are just as available if not more. There are NEW drugs on the streets that either did't exist, or were not commonly used before the campaign to outlaw drugs item by item on a list made alternatives to the specificlly banned drugs attractive.

After all, why get busted for cocaine when exstacy isn't on the banned substances list yet? Refined cocaine getting too expensive, then buy "crack" cocaine and smoke it instead of snorting it.

These are all things I've observed happen in my lifetime, and I can't see where excalating the attempt to impose US drug laws on the rest of the world is going to have any different effect than the esclations over the past forty+ years have had: more drugs availble, in both quantity and kind, to more people, of all ages, under the complete control of amoral criminals.

In the 1950's and 60's, before the current "War on Drugs" got under way a major drug bust was maybe a pound of marijuana or a couple of Kilos of refined Cocaine. Now, forty-plus years later, a drug bust generally doesn't make the news unless TONS of drugs are involved.

I can't see where excalating and exporting a failed strategy is going to improve things, but I can see the logical conclusion that the observable correlation of escalating crime and drug use will continue to follow the esclation of prohibitions and enforcement efforts as it has in the past.

And I just got through with watching, on the History Channel, a feature about the history of coccaine... apparently, since it was outlawed, there's less of it around, it's almost 10,000 times more expensive, and has been effectively pushed out of common use in most of America. Now I call that "sufficient". Which isn't to say it was a total solving of the problem of coccaine addiction, but the prohibition seems to have worked.

Past that, any number of examples could be given about drugs being illegal making them some degree harder to get, and to such a degree that people aren't exposed to them. I, for example, have never seen crack. I suspect it being illegal has been a great big factor in that.

And the conclusion you're talking about isn't "logical". It's suppositional. Logic has nothing intelligent to conclude about "based on SOME history" and "I predict THIS future". Logic just doesn't really work that way--if you could put it into a simplified premise/conclusion format, I can show you how it's not its neither valid nor necessarily sound.

 

[Weird Harold]

And I just got through with watching, on the History Channel, a feature about the history of coccaine... apparently, since it was outlawed, there's less of it around, it's almost 10,000 times more expensive, and has been effectively pushed out of common use in most of America. Now I call that "sufficient". Which isn't to say it was a total solving of the problem of coccaine addiction, but the prohibition seems to have worked.

It hasn't been "pushed out" it's been "priced out" and while refined cocaine use is down, the use of cheaper alternatives make the total usage of drugs actully higher than before.

Even if the statistics applied to every banned drug, that "ten thousand more expensive" is what creted drug cartels that can literally pay off a national debt as "protection money."

I have trouble classifying a solution that causes more problems that it purports to solve as "sufficient." All I can add is that to the best of my knowledge, I have NEVER been in in personal danger from a refined cocaine user. I HAVE been in personal danger from users and sellers of [/b]OTHER drugs that weren't in common use[/b] when cocaine was affordable. I also HAVE been in personl and immediate danger from drug dealers fighting over who gets to collec that "10,000 times more expensive" windfall to criminals.

The campaign gainst cocaine use might be "sufficient" in terms of absolute statistics on cocaine use, but it certainly is NOT "sufficient" in terms of "making society safer." Not in my personal experience, and not in the overall crime statistics or Drug enforcement budgets.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Past that, any number of examples could be given about drugs being illegal making them some degree harder to get, and to such a degree that people aren't exposed to them. I, for example, have never seen crack. I suspect it being illegal has been a great big factor in that.

First, I would like to thank you for expanding on your earlier comments which i had percieved as rather abrupt. At least now, I can see where you are coming from, and what your arguments are.

I have to post on this last bit before I go, though. More likely, you've never seen crack because of were you live. Before I moved to my current location, calling someone a 'crack-head' was basicly a joke/insult. Like telling them they're fucking nuts or whatever. (no offense to all of our crazies at lit) Here in my new location, if someone is refured to as a crackhead, most likely they are literally that. I personally have never seen crack, but that is more a factor of my lifestyle and choices coupled with some good luck and a rather hermit like existance on my part. ( A day out is likely to take me to the library, a night out to a country bar or resteraunt) But I have come accross many crack heads-- in fact was robbed by 2 of them by knifepoint in my previous job. It is illegal here as well, but it's sale and use it quite common. AFAIK crack isn't a 'university drug' it's a 'ghetto drug.' Those who can afford the pure-er (and safer) alternative of overpriced 'cocain' will not take the risks associated with crack-use. Likely if you add the use of crack-cocain w/ the use of powder cocain, (not in terms of amount of product, because crack is highly impure, cut and recut to make the expensive stuff go further-- but in terms of actual use) you will probably found that *use* and especially *abuse* has escalated. Sure, cocain was once legal and sold in coca-cola- therefore was widely in use, but not everyone who drank the soda was an abuser of coacain.

The fact that there is less of the actual product of cocain (pure) circulating does not indicate that the problem is reduced. It is very misleading. Because less of it means that it is cut (dilluted) over and over again and mixed with other harmful chemicals so that it can be sold cheaply and for more proffit. I would also wager to bet, that although you have never seen cocain personally, if you wanted to get some, it wouldn't be difficult for you to do so. You would be suprised.

 

[Weird Harold]

I would also wager to bet, that although you have never seen cocain personally, if you wanted to get some, it wouldn't be difficult for you to do so. You would be suprised.

Joe might be surprisd a how easy any given drug is to obtain, but I certainly wouldn't be -- because that's my biggest objection to the current drug policies in the US the lack of ny control over who cn get drugs if they want them.

I've used the scenario before, but perhaps Joe missed it:

I live in a neighborhood where I could send my 11-year-old grandaughter outside for an hour with $100 and instructions to bring back an ounce of marijuana, a pint of bourbon, a gram of cocaine, and apack of cigarettes.

She would most likely return with the marijuana and cocaine but not with the cigarettes and booze. The only problem she might have is not having enough cash for a full gram of cocaine.

In the neighborhood where she lives, it might take her two or three hours to acquire the drugs but she's still have the same trouble getting the booze nd cigarettes.

I have no doubt that she could]/i] get the booze and cigarettes eventually, or even easily if she already has an established source, but they simply aren't profitable to supply to elementary school kids the way drugs are and so are less acessible to children than drugs.

I hve no intention of actually testing the scenario, but I don't relly need to -- I just need to watch and pay attention to the kids her age in my neighbor hood to see indications that it is not a hypothetical scenario for them.