“And what,” the uninitiated may ask, “is a Victimless Crime?”
The answer, as given by members of the Law Enforcement community is, “A crime in which the accused has not acted in a manner harmful to another.”
In other words, nothing was stolen; no property damaged; no other party was hurt, no other real person that is. What has occurred is this: The accused has broken some “shall” or “shall not” statute of law. In all such cases the state assumes the role of victim, no matter that in most cases the accused is the real victim and the state the assailant.
Interestingly, the origin of many, if not all, victimless crimes can be traced back to that period of time in our countries history known as, Prohibition. Another fact of the so called victimless crime is that it flies in the face of the long accepted premise of law which states that for a crime to have been committed, or to be legally cognizable, real damage must have occurred to someone’s person or property as a product of an unlawful act.
By way of contemporary example, consider the results of an auto accident:
If damage of any sort to another’s property (over a certain value) or person results from what is termed the “negligent” operation of a vehicle, then that accident is legally said to be a “chargeable” accident. However, if the result of that same accident is that no damage occurs; or, if the damage which does occur is to the operators own person or property, then the accident is then legally deemed to be “non-chargeable,” because there is no victim; no other individual’s person or property was damaged.
The second part of the above example fits exactly with the accepted legal definition of when a crime is said NOT to have been committed.
I have stated most victimless crimes are in some way a product of “Prohibition"; is a statement that is not entirely factual. Perhaps it would be more true to state that most convicts now serving time for a so called victimless crime is for a crime which has existed since prohibition, and is hardly reconcilable with the popular notion that prohibition was repealed.
To allow us to understand exactly how the crimes in question have their roots in prohibition two things need to be examined:
The two constitutional ammendments, prohibition and its later repeal, both of which became part of out constitution and where then seialized thereby becoming Statutes of Law, have two entirely different scopes.
The scope of prohibition, when enacted, is well known to have included alcohol. Not so well known is the similar effect that act had on many other substances loosely grouped under the heading, narcotics. What is also not so well known is the far narrower scope of the ammendment which repealed prohibition; the scope of which only addressed the intoxicant known as alcohol, and expressly did not include that other group of intoxicants, which, ever since prohibition, have been commonly referred to as narcotics.
That in some cases, some of the individual substances which were labeled as narcotics by the prohibition act, were incorrect. Understandable in view of the available knowledge of the time, but hardly understandable considering what is now known about those mis-classified substances. The travesty is that the legal misclassification of at least one of those narcotics has been proven beyond all doubt; but, all attempts to legally reclassify the substances have failed to bear fruit.
The substance I refer to, which is legally defined as a narcotic, yet which in universally understood by the medical profession to be many things except narcotic, is marijuana.
Now, let us recall my statement claiming that many of the persons convicted of, and serving prison time for, a victimless crime. That crime is the mere possession of marijuana, a crime that, by its legal definition, has no victim.
(Neither, by the way, does the simple possession of any other controlled substance, but my intent is not to claim the existence of any legitimate non-medical use of opiates or barbiturates. The fact I doubt the legitimacy of our societies popular definition of what an acceptable level of the use of alcohol is, not withstanding.)
Obviously; when measured against the legal definition of what constitutes a crime, and particularly when the fact that a motor vehicle accident which causes no damage to another’s person or property but which may damage ones own person or property, is deemed not to constitute a crime; the imprisonment of persons convicted of the mere possession of a controlled substance, (in particular marijuana,) begins to appear as it truly is: Absurd.. A travesty of justice.
That prison sentences for possession of marijuana continue to be imposed when there is not enough prison space to house those who are currently under sentence the practice begins to show itself as ludicrous. However, given the current severe shortage of prison space and the fact that those convicted of crimes against persons as well as those who are guilty of crimes against property are routinely being released to make room for those convicted of a victimless crime simply because it is that persons third conviction for the same crime, becomes perverse. Particularly since there are those who would victimize the balance of society by requiring this countries tax payers to support the building of yet more prisons.
Assume those proponents of building more prisons are successful. Further assume the available prison space is increased by two. What are the foreseeable consequences of that exponentially expensive investment in the expansion of our prison's capacity?
Obviously our prison population would double, and with it the expense of maintaining that population would also double; i.e.: food, heat, clothing, corrections staff, just to name a few more obvious expenses. Who gets to pay the tab for all those additional operating costs? The taxpaying public, of course.
So who, if anyone, is the real victim of the state's prosecution of the so called victimless crime? Financially it’s the taxpayer. From beginning to end it is the taxpayer who bears the financial expense of all such prosecutions, convictions, and imposed prison sentences.
Who are the victims when a person who will commit crimes against property and/or persons is released in order to house someone who has repeatedly committed the crime of simple possession? Why it’s the taxpayers, not to mention the person who suffers real damage at the hands of the released violent criminal.
In fact, under the current system the taxpayer is repeatedly victimized by a justice system which, at least in the instance of prosecutions for possession of marijuana, is a burden this society can no longer afford to bear.
Having related the dual cost to this society for the prosecution of the victimless crime, possession of marijuana. Those costs are measurable in both direct monitory expense of the actual prosecution, the housing of such convicts, and the real damage and injuries caused by those criminals released to make room for the person convicted of that so called victimless crime.
In truth there is yet another expense, victim, within our society that is the result of such prosecutions as well. Still another loss suffered by society as a whole. That person is the convicted. Society looses another one of its otherwise productive members. A member who would produce and expend an income while going about the normal activity of living. Society is deprived of the taxes such a productive member pays.
The social loss to the fabric of this countries families is immeasurable.
Obviously, from a financial standpoint alone, the system must change. When added together, the cumulative expense associated with the continued criminal prosecution and incarceration of those who simply possess marijuana are disproportionate to any possible real, or imagined, benefit which may be derived from their prosecution by society as a whole.
The glaring paradox of our prosecuting the crime of possession becomes blinding when compared to the legal systems adaptation to societies use, (abuse) of alcohol. Upon examination of the laws regulating alcohol’s use we find the following:
Adult possession and responsible use are not a crime. Further, a great deal of money is generated both by private business and by the government as a product of the manufacture, distribution, sale and use by those members of society who choose to do those acts lawfully. From the farmers who grow the raw materials for its manufacture, and at every step of the process, both private and public moneys are generated.
Note however I do not claim there is no economic or social price being paid for its use. To be sure there is, and to some degree the most serious of societies' losses due to alcohol’s use is just now being addressed and abated, drunk driving. A combination of acts that have been condoned by society for far too long.
Could it be that the time has come for this society to re-evaluate the manner in which we deal with the production, distribution and use of the psychoactive substance, marijuana? Is it not possible the current laws which deal with all aspects of marijuana are causing far more damage, and expense, than society can afford to pay?
Consider the sweeping economic benefits to be derived by both the private and public sectors of society if marijuana were handled in a similar manner to alcohol. The savings derived by law enforcement and the judicial system from the discontinuance of prosecutions for most crimes related to marijuana possession, distribution and manufacture, in reality just farming. Those savings alone are staggering, if not incomprehensible to most.
Now consider the monitory savings at the corrections level by no longer housing 30 percent of our current prison population. In addition realize the dollar expenditure no longer needed to build additional prison space.
If the savings in the cost of government are not enough, add the revenue generated by the income taxes paid by those who grow, distribute and sell marijuana, not to mention the probable 50 to 80 percent of the final sales price comprised of taxes paid by that segment of society who choose to buy and use marijuana.
When viewed strictly from a financial standpoint, the continuation of our current handling of marijuana use is completely un-reconcilable.
The status of marijuana laws becomes criminal when compared to this society's tolerance of, and profit taken by the government sponsored pervasion of alcohol and gambling; just to name two.
I have no delusion that decriminalization of marijuana will miraculously solve this countries problems. I won’t. It will however greatly ease prison overcrowding and preclude the immediate need for more prison beds. I will also conceivably bolster the GNP by several percentage points.
In parting consider the tobacco industry and the fact that it is the extremely rich and powerful tobacco lobby which keeps the Tobacco industry’s status quo as it is.
Other examples of powerful money interests at work influencing our government to maintain the status quo in their own areas of interest exist.
Wouldn’t it be foolish for us to think there is no lobby financed by those who now reap huge profits as the result of the existence of our drug laws.
Always remember: If you want to know who most strongly support the status quo, just follow where the money goes. You will learn who is pro quo.