Phil --<br><br>There definitely is an inconsistency in these laws. I do believe, though, that there's an underlying right that has been poorly articulated by both liberals and conservatives -- largely both sides have some sort of compelling interest. Liberals don't want to look like wimps on crime, and conservatives, especially religious conservatives, often believe that maintaining social order overrides any thinking about "rights". I realize that you may be toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, so don't think that I'm talking about you.
<br><br>From the point of view of the prostitute or the point of view of the addict, these crimes are victimless. The prostitute isn't hurting anyone but themself. The addict isn't hurting anyone but themself. From the point of view of the prostitute's pimp or john, or the point of view of the addict's dealer, there is a victim: the prostiute or addict themself.
<br><br>As a domestic violence advocate, I am well-acquainted with crimes in which there exists a certain amount of consent on the part of the victim. People often choose to stay in abusive relationships because they have a compelling economic interest, or because they might lose their housing if they leave the perpetrator, and so on and so on. But despite the fact that they consent to an aspect of the crime -- they don't report it -- this does not mean that a crime has not occurred. A criminal act is not a tort: it is not just an offense against another person, but also an offense against the civil order. While I agree with the general legal principle that victimless crimes should not exist, it's a profoundly bad legal idea to start to allow people to consent to crimes committed against them. This legalizes, amongst other things, duelling, prostitution, drugs, and most domestic violence,.
<br><br>In terms of drugs, an effective and sensible policy might be to punish those who sell and treat those who ingest -- which handles the drug issue from a supply and demand perspective. In terms of prostitution, arrest the johns, arrest the pimps, provide services to the prostitutes. There exists a strong principle in Western law that economic coercion should be illegal: I cannot offer you a deal whereby I don't shoot you in the head in exchange for a thousand dollars. It should likewise be illegal to offer a deal where you provide a twelve hour respite from a serious medical condition -- withdrawal -- in exchange for far more than the product is worth.
<br><br>I admit that some ambiguity exists in both situations. Selling pot? Basically a victimless crime. Despite eighty years of trying to convince America, marijuana is still not addictive. Well regulated escort services with well-paid escorts? Not intrinsically exploitive. But these are the exceptions, not the rule, and in these cases -- as with the case of abortion -- I am willing to allow a little fudging around the edges in order for things to be run smoothly and for competing interests to be allowed some leeway. I don't demand, for instance, the total legalazation of abortion twenty minutes before birth: there exists, in that case, a definite competing interest on the part of the fetus-soon-to-be-infant.
<br><br>This was probably more words than the question demanded, but this is something I've really thought about.<br><br>-- ACS<br><br>-- ACS<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Phil Nisbet</b> <<a href="mailto:pcnisbet1@hotmail.com">pcnisbet1@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Andreas<br><br>I am not sure that control of ones body is a complete right in all<br>circumstances either. Society makes rules with respect to perfectly logical<br>functions like expectoration and defecation, the right to sell ones own
<br>organs or the right to sell the services of ones own body. If the right to<br>privacy in the actions one takes with respect to ones body was an absolute,<br>the act of prostitution could not be found to be illegal, since after all,
<br>the body parts of the two individuals involved in such an act are definitely<br>parts belonging to the two people contracting in privacy to use something<br>that definitely does not belong to the state.<br><br>I have often found it strange that there is an assumed universal right to
<br>privacy with respect to an abortion, but no such right exists for people<br>involved in victimless crimes. We now have the right to kill ourselves if<br>we are of sound mind, but if the same person of sound mind decides to ingest
<br>certain substances, they can and will be jailed for long periods of time.<br>The substance used for the act of suicide can indeed be the same substance<br>that in the non-lethal situation would place the person in jail.
<br><br>Similarly, if a man takes a woman to dinner, a show, gives her flowers and a<br>gift of jewels and ends up in bed with her, there is a supposed right of<br>privacy in the transaction. But if the same two people exchange far less
<br>cash and hop into bed, they are doing so criminally and their right to<br>privacy ceases to exist, including a right of the government to film them in<br>the act in Technicolor with Dolby sound for effect.<br><br>Perhaps it is best said, as did the Immortal Bard, the law is an ass. The
<br>only thing consistent in the privacy issue is its very inconsistency.<br><br>Phil Nisbet<br><br><br><br>>From: Andreas Schou <<a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>><br>>To: Donovan Arnold <
<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>><br>>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>, Nick Gier <<a href="mailto:ngier@uidaho.edu">ngier@uidaho.edu
</a>><br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)<br>>Hangsinthe Balance<br>>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:28:01 -0800<br>><br>>The right to an abortion is not the right to terminate another human life.
<br>>There exists no right to terminate another human life; otherwise, the right<br>>to abortion would extend to infanticide and murder. It does not.<br>><br>>The right that exists in an abortion is the right to control the processes
<br>>of your own body. Society has no right to dictate whether or not you are<br>>pregnant. It has no right to dictate whether you receive life-saving<br>>treatment if you don't want it. And, as the Supreme Court affirmed
<br>>yesterday, it has no right to control whether or not you die, if that<br>>decision is being made from rational deliberation and not under the<br>>compulsion of mental illness.<br>><br>>You do not have the right to purchase whatever you like. If such a right
<br>>existed, I would be driving to work in my gold-plated jet-powered Rolls<br>>Royce, when I felt like it. This is because resources are scarce; rights<br>>are<br>>not. The scarce resource to be allocated in this case -- which, I might
<br>>add,<br>>we have the <i>right</i> to allocate in a democracy -- is Moscow's retail<br>>business. Should we really allocate every last dollar of Moscow's retail<br>>business to a business, simply because it can afford to eat ten years of
<br>>zero profits and no other business in town can?<br>><br>>I really don't know why I'm doing this again, Donovan. It must be some<br>>infinite optimism about the basic reasonability of mankind. I've got to say
<br>>though: you've put a pretty big dent in infinity..<br>><br>>-- ACS<br>><br>>On 1/18/06, Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> >
<br>> > No where in any of my posting did I state I was for illegalizing<br>>abortion<br>> > Hansen nor did I make any correction. Pretty sad I have to post it TWICE<br>>or<br>> > three times and you still do not comprehend.
<br>> ><br>> > Now you know why I have to post three or four time. You cannot read or<br>> > comprehend arguments that are beyond the basic cookie cutter arguments<br>>where<br>> > you are told how to think and respond with a set of preset responses.
<br>> ><br>> > Again, why is it that a women's choice to terminate the life of a<br>> > developing human MORE PARAMOUNT then her right to buy, sell, and trade<br>> > property with whom she wishes for essential goods that impact her
<br>>quality of<br>> > life?<br>> ><br>> > How can one make one argument with the other?<br>> ><br>> > Are you only for women making a freedom of choice providing it is a<br>>choice<br>
> > you agree with?<br>> ><br>> > _DJA<br>> ><br>> > *Tom Hansen <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>>* wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Yes, Arnold.<br>> >
<br>> > However, I posted prior to your second (or was it third?) correction.<br>> ><br>> > You really must get out more, Arnold.<br>> ><br>> > Enough said.<br>> ><br>> > Tom Hansen
<br>> > Moscow, Idaho<br>> ><br>> > "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of<br>> > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to<br>>skid
<br>> > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body<br>>thoroughly<br>> > used up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'"<br>> > ------------------------------
<br>> > *From:* Donovan Arnold [mailto:<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>]<br>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:03 PM<br>> > *To:* Tom Hansen; 'Nick Gier';
<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > *Subject:* RE: [Vision2020] A Woman's Right to Choose (where she shops)<br>> > Hangs inthe Balance<br>> ><br>> > Hansen,<br>> >
<br>> > Do you read what the other person writes before responding? Seriously.<br>> ><br>> > You wrote:<br>> > "Simply eliminating legal abortions will not eliminate abortions<br>> > altogether, Arnold."
<br>> ><br>> > My argument, if you actually read it, you would have discovered that I<br>> > stated I OPPOSED illegalizing abortion.<br>> ><br>> > It is you that wish to impose your preferences and beliefs on other
<br>> > people, just like the religious right, you just have a different set of<br>> > preferences and beliefs that you wish to impose on me.<br>> ><br>> > Take Care,<br>> ><br>> > Donovan J Arnold
<br>> > _____________________________________________________<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a> !<br>> > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------
<br>> > Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover<br>> > Photo<br>>Books<<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photobooks/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38088/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=photobook_splash.html">
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photobooks/*http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/photos/evt=38088/*http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//page?.file=photobook_splash.html</a>>.<br>> > You design it and we'll bind it!
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _____________________________________________________<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br><br><br>>_____________________________________________________<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<br><br>_________________________________________________________________<br>Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!<br><a href="http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/">http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>