Are victimless crime laws unconstitutional?

[Question Everything]

The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It was written by Thomas Jefferson, who became President in 1801. In 1802 he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association saying that its purpose was to build "a wall of separation between Church and State", because they were asking him what the first amendment was really all about.

Jefferson also wrote in his Inagural address:

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

In other words, unless the government can show that people are injuring each other, it has no business restricting their activities.

I agree with Jefferson that "No victim, no crime" is not just a catchy slogan, but should be the foundation of all law, because the purpose of the law is to protect people (and other innocent parties such as animals and the environment) from the actions of others. If the law does anything else it becomes a set of meaningless rules that has no real basis.

The the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution also state:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Questions for debate:

1. Are victimless crime laws based on religion and are therefore unconstitutional because of the first amendment?

2. Are victimless crime laws unconstitutional because of the ninth and tenth amendments?

3. Do victimless crime laws undermine respect for both the law in general and also for those who enforce laws?

[Question Everything]

I believe that if it can be shown that the sole justification for a specific law is to establish a religion, then it is unconstitutional.

I believe that the whole idea that you are justified in controlling someone's behavior for no reason other than you don't like it is an idea that is based on religion, maybe not a specific religion, but religion in general.

My fantasy answer to this problem is to have a Constitutional amendment that would read something like this:

Neither Congress, nor any state or local government shall pass any law that would restrict, prohibit, or excessively tax any activity unless it can be shown that the activity caused harm to someone who either did not or was unable to give consent.

[dona123]

Hi

Another type of victimless crime is drug possession and usage. While it could be argued, usually successfully, that a person under the influence of illegal drugs could cause damage to other people or property, the general possession or personal use of those drugs is usually characterized as a victimless crime by those seeking to repeal current drug laws. The user may be causing damage to his or her own body through habitual drug use — and therefore some may argue the possessor or user is the victim — but the laws which make possession of these substances a criminal offense are largely written and enforced by non-users. The victim in this particular "victimless crime" is arguably the general public, since the criminalization of drugs makes it more difficult for drug-fueled criminals to commit other serious crimes.

Thanks


(Link edited out)

[Question Everything]

Hi
Another type of victimless crime is drug possession and usage. While it could be argued, usually successfully, that a person under the influence of illegal drugs could cause damage to other people or property, the general possession or personal use of those drugs is usually characterized as a victimless crime by those seeking to repeal current drug laws.

I am one of those those seeking to repeal current drug laws, and I have been doing so for about two decades. This is an issue I have studied very well.

Unless you are talking about driving while impaired (which should be illegal) about the only damage to other people or property you get from drug use is caused because they are illegal - people committing crimes to get the money to buy them and manufacturers and dealers committing crimes because they are already criminals in the first place.

The user may be causing damage to his or her own body through habitual drug use — and therefore some may argue the possessor or user is the victim — but the laws which make possession of these substances a criminal offense are largely written and enforced by non-users.

How much damage and what kind of damage depends on the drug and how it is used. Some cause great harm, some cause little or no harm, some have positive benefits that can really help people. Erowid is the best overall source of information I know of, and it documents this very well.

The law is totally oblivious to this fact.

The victim in this particular "victimless crime" is arguably the general public,

which is harmed much more from laws against drugs than the drugs themselves.

since the criminalization of drugs makes it more difficult for drug-fueled criminals to commit other serious crimes.

Actually, it makes it easier. If you have to deal with criminals to get your drugs, you are much more likely to become one.