26

Shouldn't laws only stop one from harming other (socially, physically etc)? What is the purpose of other laws?

For example, if an individual takes drugs without causing harm to others - what gives the government the right to stop him?

divibisan
  • 25,926
  • 6
  • 110
  • 135
Harry Tong
  • 479
  • 4
  • 6
  • 1
    I believe the question would be more useful if it was "Are there laws that don't relate to harming another?" or "Why does law XYZ exist which does not seem to prevent any harm?". As given now, it is strongly opinionated (i.e., expressing the believe that there indeed are laws like this) and leading to extremely opinionated answers. – AnoE Mar 28 '17 at 14:44
  • 1
    You've asked THREE very different questions. The answer to "Why are there laws that...?" is that laws are made by people. The answer to "What is the purpose of such laws?" is individual for each such law—ask the law's originator. The answer to "What gives the government the right...?" is: what gives the government any rights? Governments don't have rights. Only individuals can have rights. Governments are just an idea that people have. – Wildcard Mar 29 '17 at 05:27
  • Is a philosophic or theoretical answer appropriate? – indigochild Mar 29 '17 at 12:20
  • Using recreational drugs doesn't harm others (except when the user becomes a non-functioning and/or disruptive burden to society), but selling recreational drugs is a whole other proposition. – Solomon Slow Nov 03 '20 at 22:14

7 Answers7

57

There are three major arguments which are often brought up to justify it when societies decide to punish people for victimless crimes:

  1. The values of the society in general are considered the victim of the crime (e.g. criminalization of certain sexual acts between consenting adults)
  2. Society has the duty to protect individual citizens from harming themselves (e.g. prohibiting recreational drug use, mandating use of seatbelts)
  3. Society declares an act a crime because performing that act makes it more likely that the perpetrator will commit a more serious crime in the future (e.g. making gun ownership illegal to prevent homicides)

Whether or not these arguments are valid is more of a philosophical discussion.

In specific cases, there are also sometimes utilitarian arguments for or against certain policies against specific victimless crimes. To pick up the example of recreational drug use, one could argue about the economic damage caused by drug abuse and whether or not it justifies the restriction of liberties and the economical cost of enforcing them. But these only apply to specific examples and not to victimless crimes in general.

Philipp
  • 76,766
  • 22
  • 234
  • 272
  • 9
    Might add a subcategory -- cost to the general public. In theory, if you can ban the use of a highly toxic hallucinogen, then you reduce the cost of medical followups, or state support of the now-indigent family after you die. This can be labelled "secondary harm to others," maybe. – Carl Witthoft Mar 28 '17 at 12:33
  • 4
    @CarlWitthoft I think I covered this with the last paragraph. – Philipp Mar 28 '17 at 12:34
  • 3
    This is a perfectly fine answer, though it's mostly opinion (that said, the question is asking for opinions, so...+1) –  Mar 28 '17 at 14:11
  • @blip Philipp was noting the points most often used to argue for such laws. As he noted, their validity is not the point of discussion. – JAB Mar 28 '17 at 14:22
  • @JAB I'm not questioning their validity. –  Mar 28 '17 at 14:50
  • 4
    Praeteritio: trotting out controversial examples, then excusing their mention by calling them philosophical controversies. And let's not conflate argumentative validity with soundness. – agc Mar 29 '17 at 04:44
  • 13
    #4 Conservation of resources: government boating safety programs are considerably more efficient and effective when people wear Personal Flotation Devices. Or, the low cost act of wearing a motorcycle helmet greatly decreases medical costs that are often passed on to society (eg. the ICU care for an uninsured cyclist who cracked his skull open). – Paulb Mar 29 '17 at 11:27
  • 2
  • Which seems like a valid reason. Except that studies from decriminalization and legalization in Portugal and The Netherlands has shown the complete opposite. Not only do they have less drug related fatalities, but they have less drug usage.
    • – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 20:40
  • 1
    @dan-klasson Except, in the United States, a peer-review study shows legalization of drugs like marijuana led to increase problematic drug use among teens and adults, not less (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191113153049.htm). Not saying we should stop legalized weed or anything like that, but the studies in Portugal and The Netherlands are still debated and this principle of legalization = less drug use doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. – Tyler Mc Sep 07 '20 at 17:30
  • @Paulb sometime it's also due to laymen misunderstanding the true economic impact. I.e. cigarettes are actually a net benefit to society economically because it's cheaper for people to die at ~65 from lung cancer than from other cancers at 85. – JonathanReez Dec 23 '22 at 19:30