Drugs? No Victim, No Crime

Victimless CrimesI like to think that life is simple. Moral rules, right and wrong, justice and injustice – are all based on timeless, simple principles that worked the same for prehistoric and early civilized man as they do for us today.

We, unfortunately live in an advanced age, with massive control apparatus (also known as “government”). This massive apparatus – run by millions of bureaucrats – has a massive program that it implements with the help of its affiliates (media, industry, academia, etc.) to convince us that the new age requires something new. New laws, new standards, new definitions of justice and above all new morality.

I reject this.

Here’s a simple concept that ancient man – and naive children of today – would grasp.

  • A crime must have both a perpetrator and a victim
  • These must be two different people
  • Therefore a person cannot be guilty of committing a crime against themselves

Yet, a very substantial arm of The Apparatus is dedicated to defining and enforcing Victimless Crimes, for example by persecuting drug users and their voluntary associates (dealers, etc.).

Drug-taking harms no one – including the drug-taker himself. By definition the drug-taker benefits from the drugs, or else he would not choose to use. This may also seem absurd, and to defend why this is so will require another blog post, but it is based on the notion of Praxeology, a refinement of the “self interest” doctrine in economics. A man doesn’t make a choice to do something unless it will benefit (by either increasing his happiness/joy, or mitigating his pain/discomfort).

The illegitimacy of drug laws is evident any time someone admits to having taken drugs in the past. The very President of the United States admitted to having smoked and inhaled marijuana. Why was this man not hauled straight away to jail for admitting to such a crime? Technically because the law is only against possession of marijuana, not using it. Amazing. This is like saying that a rapist is only guilty of rape if caught in the act.

Children are like the early civilized man – Hammurabi, Solon, etc. They are born with the right instincts which must be warped by the education machine. But they instinctively understand the truth. Their naive questions about morality are threatening and unsettling to their parents. Parents can only muster retorts such as “you don’t understand”, or “if only the world were that simple”. I pity grown adults who’s minds are lost like this. They cannot think for themselves, or if they can they refuse to since to do so would require rebuking decades of received knowledge about morality and justice that they’ve been taught – directly and by osmosis.

I won’t go into great detail about the various arguments for or against anti-drug laws and their efficacy – that has been done elsewhere. And its really irrelevant to my point.

If you accept the syllogism I bulleted out above, you must accept that all drug laws are illegitimate. Not only that, they are positively evil since they interfere with the free will of people. And the massive collateral damage wrought by the “drug war” outside of this evil compounds the situation even more.

By the way – that image up top. It references an actual event.

  • Star Thrower

    Hey, you’ve got to cool it with all of this common sense. It’ll drive you mad! You know Bertrand Russell got nowhere promoting common sense a hundred years ago. And neither did Gore Vidal for the past sixty years. Hey, the football game is starting. Gotta go!

    • bensommer

      Sorry I’ll try to take it easy. Enjoy your mindless entertainment! 🙂