Sin City: the Benefits of Legalized Vices

Question: Should Las Vegas serve as a prototype for legalized prostitution? How would the same laws impact other vices such as gambling and drug use?

Scenario: Prostitution has been legalized. Sort of. Now men and women who wish to engage in the perfectly legal pornography industry, sans cameras, will now be able to. Because it's legal, it's regulated. It's safe. The "product" is now checked by a physician and every client is screened for disease and violence. Workers have rights they never had before and the employers are no longer allowed to exploit them.

Thoughts: That said it all. Exploitation has been the battle cry of women's rights groups for decades. But a prostitute with rights and set income who is being taken care of through healthcare and housing is not a woman being exploited. She is a woman doing with her body what she wants to. This is the example Vegas has set for the rest of the US. We have no REAL reason not to follow suit. No legal precedent.

Scenario 2: You got a nice bonus at work this week. An extra $50. You think you'll buy a 6 pack and play a little Texas Hold 'Em when you get home only to log on and find out all the gambling sites have been blocked from US access. A clear violation of the Fair Trade Agreement, but you don't get to make the rules and now you'll just have to spend that extra cash on LEGAL vices like more beer or some smokes.

Thoughts: Reason magazine recently wrote a wonderful piece of journalism which broke down exactly why online gambling and, in fact, ALL gambling should be legalized. For starters, they explained that the fear most have of gamblers becoming addicts is a myth. Less than 5% of gamblers who gamble "regularly" are addicted to it. In fact, they are no more "addicted" to the activity than one who plays video games or goes jogging every morning. Many would call it their "hobby" and on average they spend less than $20 a night. So I ask you this, lawmakers and moral enforcers, DEFINE ADDICTION. If a man invests a large portion of his income into remaking old cars, does he have a hobby or an addiction? Since when did the line get crossed between the two? Just because large sums of income are used in an activity does not equate addiction. What about passion? Define that one.

In my opinion: A hobby is something you do for personal enjoyment and fun. An addiction is said activity taken to the point that it interferes with and prevents you from having the happiness you originally sought. However, these are vagaries and neither activity should be deemed "illegal". You might want to advise against addictions or set up help groups and counseling, but altering the law to reflect your personal moral code is not acceptable. The CHOICE should still be left to the individual.

Scenario 3: You come home from a long day on the job and instead of reaching for a cold beer, you roll a joint and sit in front of the TV waiting for your girlfriend to finish dinner. You're a criminal.

Thoughts: That's it. As hard as it is to grasp for some people, marijuana and many other drugs are not instantly bad nor deadly. Like her legal cousins alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana won't KILL you. In fact, it's just a relaxer which calms the mind and muscles. That's why medicinal marijuana is becoming more widely accepted, it relieves pain. You know, like old grandmothers used to rub your gums with rum or whiskey while you were teething. Patients suffering chronic pain can now experience temporary relief in the form of another chemical. However, the fight to make this drug along with so many other legalized has become an uphill battle. People determined to force their moral beliefs on others have decided that only "approved" drugs should be legalized. Stop and let that sink in.

Now, I hate wool. It's itchy and I'm allergic to animals so I cannot tolerate it. In fact, if I touch anything in a store or brush against someone wearing wool, I will get itchy. It's an inconvenience. But that's all it is. It is not within my rights to complain and get these item pulled from shelves everywhere. Why then do some people assume that these basic laws of human rights do not apply to certain drugs? Drugs used in the privacy of your own home. Remember, I already said that AS LONG as you are NOT violating someone else's rights, then you should be allowed to engage in any activity you like. This means I favor DUI laws, but I still think bars should be open. Same goes for marijuana and any other drug someone wants to use on their own body. If it kills them or makes them lose their job etc, it is not my place to tell them they cannot do it. I am allowed to tell them they SHOULD NOT, but nothing more.

Closing: Enforced "moral codes" are a violation of the same human rights our founding fathers moved here to preserve. The basic idea behind our law structure was that one should be allowed the maximum amount of freedoms available to them as long as they did not violate the freedom and rights of another human being. In other words, you can spend your money on whatever you want to spend it on as long as it's not murder or robbery. When a person works for a particular wage, it is income they have earned. This disposable income is now their property and should they decide to donate half of it to a church, build a new strip club or buy a pound of marijuana then they should be within their legal rights to do so. The problem is, with current laws the way they are, this is not possible. People are not allowed to do to their bodies what they wish nor are they allowed to use their assets as they wish. No one is forcing you to be party to something you disagree with morally. However, by forcing others into "the dark" and making their happiness an illegal activity or a crime, you are violating their rights.

In the end, making certain activities legal would benefit everyone involved. The activities would become safer and would be taxable by the government. Set your personal beliefs aside for one moment and tell me that's bad. It's not.