Replies

If I’m not mistaken, it seems to me that you’re suggesting that criminal laws do not restrain activities that are deemed to be criminal offenses in the eyes of the law.

So I’m curious, do you think should we have criminal laws, or no criminal laws at all ?

If you do think we should have criminal laws, please explain why we should, i.e., what purpose do criminal laws serve ?

I'm not terribly convinced that laws do have a deterrent effect. It is upbringing and societal pressure that have traditionally served as deterrents to criminal behavior. Laws simply spelled out the penalties for engaging in it.

We have misunderstood the relationship between laws and behavior and increasingly expect the police and the courts to maintain the ordered society we remember fondly. They can't do it. They can't ride herd on society any more than teachers can impart an education to children who don't want one.

We certainly should have criminal laws. We still need to punish behavior that harms others. But drug laws, I think, should be limited to bad behavior while using drugs -- not the use itself.

It's how we treat alcohol. We punish, for example, driving while drunk, but not the drinking itself.

Very good question. I hope I answered it satisfactorily.

I'm not terribly convinced that laws do have a deterrent effect.

Laws do have a deterrent effect. I would not make a right turn on a red signal if it was illegal. Where it is legal, I do it. When something is "against the rules" and merits a punishment, people avoid doing that something more than if the something is legal. Children know this, but adults who want something legalized refuse to admit it.

Beer and wine have been food for thousands of years; their purpose is not only to become drunk. It is quite common to have some wine with a meal and not get drunk. The beer and wine have a flavor that can be tasted; the idea of a good meal is to have food and drink in such a combination as pleases the palate. If one overindulges in alcoholic drink one becomes drunk, but it is quite common for people to drink and not become drunk.

Drugs, however, are only taken to become intoxicated on the drug, that is, to lose one's mental faculties and to escape reality. Also, the more people do this, the more they entice other people to do it (most of us have seen this firsthand). And usage typically increases over time; very few people can control their use to mitigate the destructive effect on their lives (again, most of us have seen this firsthand). Drugs and promiscuity go hand-in-hand, and promiscuity is also destructive of society as it leads to increases in fornication, children born out of wedlock and spread of disease. This is extremely counterproductive and destructive of society and has no redeeming benefits.

The Biblical argument is simpler - the Bible exhorts us to refrain from drunkenness.

As far as how the legal system works as of now, I think there are a few flaws, for example, overuse of SWAT teams. Large fines for users would do a lot more to get rid of demand, and could be processed through the system without SWAT teams. Sellers will leave the business as buyers stop buying. IMHO, it seems as though the system wants the game of cat and mouse to continue, instead of making drug use obsolete, and thereby getting more work done.