The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should the government continue to create and sanction victimless crime?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,316 times Debate No: 51350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




It sounds very simple, but when you think about it, I'm advocating true freedom here. People can't just marry anyone they want but adultery is legal. Prostitution is illegal and we enjoy putting people in prison for it, costing taxpayers an average $46,000 a year per prisoner. Rather than actually helping these prostitutes, we put them in the worst situation we possibly could which actually costs a ridiculous amount of money. Their customers are in the same boat. Yes, prostitution is a terrible thing but why does the government have to put people in cages for doing something that is practically a victimless crime? What about gay marriage? Why does the government tell us who we can and can't marry simply because of their own, personal, religious beliefs? Why do your beliefs have to have such a big impact on everyone's personal life? If this was a free country, we wouldn't be putting people in prison for smoking a plant! A victimless crime that 750,000 people are convicted of every year in the US. One of the major reasons why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. We create this massive black market for marijuana ourselves, by making it illegal. 80% of the money the cartels make is from marijuana. Money that is then used to support more dangerous crime. People who are convicted of marijuana related crimes can face charges with longer sentences than rape and murder. Our law enforcement wants marijuana to stay illegal because that's where they get most of their money. It's an easy crime to convict someone of and is considered a huge deal in our justice system. Even though it is extremely common for Americans to smoke marijuana. Marijuana prohibition was born out of ignorance. People actually thought that it made the "lesser races" more violent, and that it made white women fall in love with "Negros"! It was something they weren't totally sure about and because of their ignorance, they were afraid. This was during the great depression. Anyway, marijuana is not a cause of violent behavior and people who drive stoned might be twice as likely to get in a wreck, but drunk drivers have a much higher chance of doing the same. They also have a high tendency to become reckless and drive 120 mph. The hilarious part is that stoned drivers are the exact opposite. On another point, the government should not tell parents how to and how not to raise their children. They should not dictate anything we do with our lives unless we are causing other people harm. It goes without saying that kids should go to school. It goes without saying that kids shouldn't smoke pot. But that is not something the government should have such an overwhelming involvement in. How can we expect to keep drugs out of our schools when we can't even keep them out of maximum security prisons? The drug war is a pointless war that has not had any impact on how people live their lives except now, many people live in fear. The fact of the matter is that if people want to do stupid things, they will do it. The government should actually educate us on important issues like marijuana and prostitution. They shouldn't lie to us and say things that we later find out were not true. Lying about marijuana was the worst thing the government could have ever done with that issue. When you lie and say something is worse than it really is and people find out you were actually lying, people will think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. The reason being that if you didn't tell them anything bad about it that was true, they think that there's probably nothing wrong with it at all. The fact of the matter is that marijuana can be abused like anything else in this world that people enjoy doing. It can be addictive, not because of components in the plant that make it physically addictive, but because you can become mentally addicted to anything that you enjoy. Another thing, many of the movements and theories against marijuana that are common such as the gateway drug theory are actually funded by tobacco and alcohol companies. Marijuana is not the gateway drug, alcohol and tobacco are. They don't want people to know that there is very little wrong with it because if people keep believing the lies, they will continue to make more money. And of course, kill very many thousands of people every year when marijuana is actually almost impossible to overdose on. In theory, you would have to consume 1,500 pounds in 15 minutes to OD. Also, do not tell me that I need to give examples only from government websites, because those are managed by the same people that created this problem. If America can really be called a free country, we need to let people make their own decisions. We need to educate our kids on serious problems in the world today with clear, concise facts. Enforcing these ridiculous laws on the people does not cause the problems to disappear. The government is the enemy to the people and that is just wrong. I would appreciate it if you could give me more examples of the government's unnecessary involvement in our lives.


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.

A.) Prostitution
B.) Marijuana

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.

I. Prostitution

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".

II. Marijuana

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!

Debate Round No. 1


The reason why I made this debate was so that I could show how the government improperly handles these situations.

I. Prostitution

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.

II. Marijuana

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.
Very expensive
Around 1,500 pounds
I heard 80% from 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.
Debate Round No. 2


OK well I hope that everyone who read that debate learned something today. BTW many people who lived in Nazi Germany assumed that their government was doing what they were doing for good reasons. They didn't find out for themselves, they just followed along. They thought that there couldn't be anything wrong with the way their government handled things. In reality, no government is completely perfect and it's practically impossible for any government to not be corrupt in some way. People are so terrible that they can take a religion that is based on peace and love and start preaching hate.


queenofmayhem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 7 years ago
I completely agree with the the instigator and doubt hell find somebody to debate with. I believe a crime is when a person in someway negatively impacts somebody's life. People who harm themselves should be helped not punished. Prostitution is a tricky on because many prostitutes are not working under free will.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.