Of course, all human actions have an intransitive effect, to
one degree or another. I agree with you, wholeheartedly, about the human
handling of power, especially in government. But that’s not my argument, nor do
I think the truth that all human actions have an intransitive effect, to one
degree or another, takes away from my initial point (or the need for believers
in “victimless crimes” to address that point.)

Perhaps another clarification is on order. By “intransitive”
I don’t mean unintended consequences. I’m not saying, for instance, that the
“war on drugs” doesn’t create a black market or criminals.  I see how that happens.  By intransitive I mean what I said: human
actions effect the actor as well as the recipient, and perhaps more so given
the action.

As far as agency goes (in an LDS context), agency is not the
goal, happiness is.  Agency is necessary
for happiness, but so is self-restraint and so is restraint imposed by others
when our poor behavior negatively impacts them. 
This is why we have government at all – yes, to protect our liberties
but also to encourage our freedom (liberty and freedom being two unique
attributes in a free society).

And I do think the “do no harm” principle objectifies
people.  I think it does say, “I care
about myself, certainly, but I don’t really care about you if I’m willing to
stand by and watch you shoot heroin in your arm.”  By the way, I think I actually objectify many
people in this way.

I do see your point however. 
The need for people to experience failure to, in turn, experience human
progress must hold sway. We can’t “save” everyone, even if we want to (the
Liberal mistake).  Again, I’m not saying
your points don’t have validity.  I am
saying that your points don’t negate mine from this initial blog post about
intransitive human actions.

Lastly, I do think our thoughts can diminish freedom, if I
also believe that my thoughts influence my words and actions.  But that is a finer point.

As I’ve said several times, I agree that policy
reforms are needed regarding how we address the assistance we give to people
addicted to drugs. I’m just not willing to surrender the moral price of freedom
in that process.

I really appreciate your thoughts, though. Thanks.

I was returning home from a school board meeting, north-bound on 10th West in Logan.  That road, until major construction last year, was a fairly narrow two-lane road as it went past Icon Fitness, and the speed limit was 50 mph.  There are also several houses in that stretch with driveways that open right onto 10th West.

About the time one passed the LDS church on the east side, the speed limit dropped to 30 mph, in spite of the fact that the road was wider from there to the light at LW’s on 2nd North and there is only one street with a stop sign to control access and one farm on the west. The elementary school entrance (the original reason for the 30 mph limit) that used to be on 10th West was moved around the corner onto 600 South several years ago.  Even without traffic speed records to determine the 85th percentile speed, a reasonable argument can be made that, especially in view of the speed limit past Icon, 30 mph was too low for the wider, more controlled road.

Thinking about the issues at the meeting I had just left, I was going 45, five under the speed limit a couple blocks south where the road was narrower, when a Logan officer, who was parked with his lights out at the stop sign mentioned above, pulled me over.  I had no intention of speeding and so your intransitive effect does not apply to me.  There was virtually no vehicular traffic and there were no pedestrians.  I ask you, where was the victim?

Another example:  A young man on our street offered to carry a girl’s backpack for her.  He says he did not know there was anything in the backpack besides school books, which is pretty likely true, since most young men don’t examine the girl’s backpack when they offer to be a gentleman.  He was busted for carrying drugs.  You can argue that the girl having drugs in her backpack created a victim somehow if only herself, but where is the victim for HIS crime?

Paul, I really would like to read your response to my statements.  I agree with your opinion on many issues and respect your logical thinking.  You attempted to develop a rational argument and asked for responses to it.  I have specifically addressed your points. 

The ball is in your court.

“When I say, “I’d never use heroin because I know it is unhealthy and
could kill me, but I don’t care if you choose to use it,” I’m actually
seeing you as less than me. I’m really saying, “I don’t care about your
health and I don’t care if you kill yourself.” I’ve just objectified
you. I’ve just made a choice (conscious or otherwise) not to see you as a
human being equal to me. And when I’ve done that, freedom is
diminished.”

Not only are you assuming that I can’t forego the temptation to try to force someone to behave the way I want without “objectifying” them, but even if I were, you can’t prevent me from “objectifying” them whether you make them a criminal or not.

Furthermore, whose “freedom is diminished” when this “objectifying” happens?  The freedom of the “criminal”? or the freedom of the person “objectifying” the “criminal”?  Your argument about intransitive effects make the point that the only freedom lost is that of the person judging the “criminal”.  Thoughts don’t diminish freedom in anyone but the one who thinks them and you can’t prevent that.  Making the drug user a criminal has no positive effect on either one. 

In fact, it has nothing but negative consequences.  The “criminal” is thrown into prison where his bad habits are reinforced by the company he keeps and his economic, social and familial circumstances are further damaged by his punishment and record.  The people who approve of treating him this way have the satisfaction of seeing their “objectification” of the “criminal” ratified by the legal system and society.

I wish there were a way for a poster to edit his own post.

I don’t see the crime and black market issue as completely separate, as you seem to think it is.  The intransitive aspect of outlawing something is that the profit motive creates or facilitates a class of people whose choices to grow or supply the outlawed substance at any risk or cost, including murder.  And they also have a transitive effect on the rest of us.

I don’t know your religious inclination, but as I understand LDS theology, God was willing to deny a large part of his family the chance to even enter mortality over the issue of agency and their desire to control the lives of others.  I can’t speak for others, but I can say “I won’t do that and I really don’t want you to do it either, but I will not use force to impose my will on you.”  I don’t think you can claim that I objectify people. 

Death is a door, not annihilation.  Agency is more important than death and for that very reason is something that you actually can’t take away from someone else.  Read the stories of people who have been imprisoned and tortured who have chosen to react without hate or malice.  They couldn’t choose their circumstances, but they still chose their response.  I believe that the real damage in a situation where one person tries to take or control the agency of another is your intransitive effect on the control freak.  Next is the acceptance and proliferation of that attitude among the rest of society.

I am afraid that intransitive effects on both sides of this issue, which is much broader than legal/illegal drugs, have brought us to a point where there is no solution.  There is serious dysfunctional thought and behavior on both sides.

Consider the profundity of Joseph Smith’s statement “I teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves.” Punishment is separation. Don’t live up to the commitments of your religious paradigm then you may be excommunicated. Interfere with another individuals’ agency to choose how they live then you may be imprisoned. One religious dogma doesn’t have right or governing power to subdue differing religion. It doesn’t matter if you favor laws that prohibit/limit polygamy, polyandry, hallucinogenic drug use, coffee, tea, prostitution, or marijuana. The fact is the LDS church has a Temple in Los Vegas Nevada- people have chosen to limit their behavior in spite of what the law allows because they have aligned themselves to a particular religious paradigm. When individuals violate the governing laws religious leaders judge the behavior considering punitive measures of dis-fellowship, excommunication, and provide a path of repentance leading back to full fellowship. It is a matter of individual responsibility/agency to abide by the prescribed conditions of repentance and not the strong arm state police that help the individual on that return path.

I don’t want a Muslim instituting laws requiring genital mutilation (female circumcision) any more than I want to see my Bishop seeking the imprisonment of a marijuana smoking atheist. “…those whom torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” –CS Lewis

The love of power and dominion over others is the most offensive and abused “gateway” drug of all. In spite of the laws of the land people will continue in their addictions until they feel a need to change. That which is legal is in fact more easily regulated and taxed. A nominal tax on legal substances (cigarettes) can then more appropriately be used to fund appropriate addiction treatment programs. As it is we maintain a war on drugs which operates based on taxes collected in other areas while the CIA continues to fund many covert operations through the illicit drug trade. Legalization then becomes a path for: reducing governmental corruption, increasing revenue for appropriately chosen addiction programs, & decreasing the demand for prison space. Preserve the employers right to terminate for drug use as prescribed in employee handbook and employer needs are appropriately addressed. For all the pontificating you may as well argue for making ice cream illegal.