Should the government continue to create and sanction victimless crime?
Debate Rounds (3)
First off, I would like to congratulate my opponent on their first debate.
My opponent has not stated any rules, so I believe it is my duty implement them, and I hope my opponent agrees. First, there will be no forfeiting. Second, proper conduct should be advised, prohibiting vulgarity and/or profanity. Finally, both the instigator and contender should be recquired to use proper spelling and grammar.
Now I will supply some definitions i feel are necessary for this debate.
Create: to bring something into existence
Sanction: a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule (a.k.a. prohibition)
Victimless Crime: a legal offense to which all parties consent and no party is injured
Source: Google definitions
Now, let us look at the "victimless crimes" the my opponent has used as examples.
I will save much of my information for the next rounds, however we will take a brief look into prostitution and marijuana use and I will refute the above claims, saving most of my rebuttals for the following rounds.
My opponent's claim is that prostitution is victimless, however they never specified what exact kind of prostitution. For example, child prostitution is by no means a victimless crime. However, I am willing to overlook this and assume that my opponent means "adult" prostitution.
As stated above, a victimless crime is a crime in which both parties consent and neither are harmed. However, now we delve into the fact about whether prostitution is, in fact, harmless. For the sake of this debate remaining on topic, I will attempt to avoid getting side tracked into this controversial topic, so I will make this brief as possible.
Prostitution is the act of having sex in exchange for money. In most cases, it is a man who pays for a woman prostitute to perform sexual acts on him. These men are called johns, and the prostitute's boss is known as a pimp. To keep this quick, I will supply some statistics to show that prostitution is not "victimless".
My opponent's claims regarding marijuana are questionable and not backed up by sources, so I will stick to formate and give a brief argument regarding marijuana.
Second hand smoke: smoke that can be inhaled involuntarily by people around a smoker
This definition alone shows that marijuana, also, is not victimless. Due to the implementation of random drug tests recquired at jobs and schools, this can harm non-smokers both externally and internally. Inhaling second smoke also leaves strong traces of tetrahydrocannabinol, which can severly alter the state of mind and cause serious damage to the mentally ill should they be exposed to it for an extended period of time.
III. Freedom of choice, unless this choice affects parties uninvolved in this choice.
As stated above, marijuana is not victimless due to the fact that parties "uninvolved" are being affected. Prostitution also is not victimless, because in many cases, the prostitute is harmed by the john and/or the pimp. However, prostitution also affects uninvolved parties due to spread of STDs.
I am running out of time and will save most of my information for the rebuttals I anticipate my opponent will state.
Back to you, Con!
The study you posted about prostitution presents a lot of good arguments against prostitution, but it absolutely does not justify locking up prostitutes rather than helping them. Why would they lock up prostitutes when they could lock up their pimps who force them into prostitution? Assuming they are forced into prostitution by a pimp, locking up the victim does nothing to help the situation. For all they know, the prostitutes could get out of jail and be right back where they started. It's a meaningless use of resources and, although it doesn't contribute much to the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world, it still shows a lack of freedom in choosing how we live. And keeping it illegal just because prostitutes commonly have STD's is ridiculous because this is a common problem for anyone. Having sex with anyone who has been with a few people before, can be considered dangerous if you aren't totally sure they don't have an STD. The only difference is a prostitute makes money from sex while other people don't.
It should not result in locking up people who have committed no violent crime. Also, when it comes to prostitutes being beaten, that is between those two people. Supposedly the pimp is there to protect the prostitute but what if it were law enforcement instead? That would root out this need for a pimp in the first place. This was not the center of my argument, as you can probably tell, but it does contribute.
If you are saying I'm advocating smoking in public, I am not. I think that being able to drink in public contributes to DUI statistics and violent crime. People at this point realize that second hand smoke is dangerous when it comes to tobacco smoke, as what is somewhat the case for marijuana smoke as well. Cigarettes are actually much more harmful to the lungs than marijuana, and considering the growing use of e-cigarettes because of problems with lung cancer and lessening acceptance of tobacco smoke, I don't think smoking marijuana in public without a vapor fluid would be acceptable. I also don't think it's reasonable. Alcohol gets you drunk, and marijuana gets you high. If alcohol had the potential to make other people around you drunk, it would not be legal in public. It would not be a possibility. The problem with this victim less crime of smoking marijuana, is that people can be locked up for smoking marijuana alone, in their own home. Where absolutely nobody else is harmed physically or psychologically. About 88% of the time, marijuana arrests are for possession alone. I love how you said my views are questionable. Let me find all of these sources.
I suppose that explains some of what I said.
Around 1,500 pounds
I heard 80% from drugs.inc. I guess that was only an estimate from a single city. Or maybe I just got the numbers wrong, not sure.
A very long and wasteful sentence
I suppose that explains a little bit about why police don't want it legal. It's kind of like how the Nazi's sent swingers to concentration camps and took everything they owned. Okay not quite, but you get the point.
There was also another study that said alcohol makes someone 14 times more likely to get in a wreck, while marijuana only doubles it. This study was a little more reasonable and comprehensive.
I also heard somewhere that alcohol and tobacco companies pay a lot of money to keep these theories against marijuana afloat. I can't find where that was though.
This one scares me though and shows that people can't trust there is anything wrong with marijuana at all. Who knows, maybe we could have it in coffee shops in a few years.
And yes, a lot of Americans have tried it.
Less addictive and potentially less dangerous than tobacco. Ask our president :D
And also from what I just said about marijuana in this argument
So yes, it is a very bad idea to smoke 16 joints in a small, non-ventilated room with other people there as well. The only way that marijuana can be particularly harmful to people who are over 25, is if police lock them up for 20 years because of it, or for instance, they get fired because of something they did last week in their own home, as marijuana generally stays in your system for a long time.
I'm sorry, I just didn't expect anyone to actually make an argument against what I said. Maybe the prostitution part was questionable, but beatings and STD's alone do not show that prostitution should lead to these prostitutes getting locked in a cell. And their customers who don't cause them harm should not be locked up either.
The way I can see all of these victim less crimes being thrown out of the window, is not really conclusive. All I know is that a lot needs to be done in our justice system to prevent these problems from becoming anymore ridiculous. I sincerely hope you don't make another argument against what I just said, because I took at least an hour to make this one. What if the government regulated prostitution? I don't know what would happen, but that sounds a lot safer. I only want people to realize how misinformed they are on these issues. America needs to be free. Supporting these unconstitutional laws is wrong.
Also, enforcing a legal drinking age does not stop teens from drinking. It's just another way for the government to act like they control how we live. It should be up to the parents, not the government. We all know people who are 18, should be allowed to drink. But because that indirectly causes problems, they just moved it up to 21. Of course, threatening young adults with jail time if they drink a beer. I can buy a gun though. That's one thing they let me do.
Thanks for your time.
queenofmayhem forfeited this round.
queenofmayhem forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.