All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

-Values- Part of this debate depends on one value judgment over another, namely utilitarian values versus Kozu's value of absolute freedom. Kozu tells us that as long as all parties involved give full consent to an action, then outside parties are morally obligated to allow them to do so. Kozu tells us that the government should morally prioritize maximizing freedom over other moral values. How does this mean that I am not taking into consideration how the United States runs? The United States is a democracy run by humans, and humans generally value life, happiness and freedom. Am I wrong? Kozu's value assertion is that freedom exceed all other values. Kozu not only doesn't take into consideration how the United States runs, but he also doesn't take into consideration generic human ethical values that govern drive democratic, human decisions. Sure some harms are legalized, but other harms aren't. Cocaine and meth are 100% illegal in the United States. Meth is illegal everywhere in the world. How can cigarettes be legal in just about every corner of the world, but meth illegal in the same way? Simply, it is the belief that the degree of harm that meth would cause to society and individuals outweigh the value of freedom. The worst drugs being illegal while lesser drugs like tobacco remain legal is proof that our government operates under values other than freedom. "Land of the Free" though we may be, freedom has its limits. There comes a point where freedom steps over certain boundaries on other important values - such as utilitarian values - and the law's containing both legal and illegal harms is proof that this is true. Kozu points to the legal harms, but ignores the implications of currently illegal harms. He ignores that his own value of freedom is a moral value, and gives us the baseless assertion that no other moral values hold any significance to the United States lawmakers and laws. -Defending all Victim-less Crimes- 1. Drug use In light on the value debate, I defend against the decriminalization of drugs like heroin and meth. Kozu says lots more died of Tobacco than the illegal heroin, but there's still the fact that heroin is illegal. Tobacco is not, and is sold in quantities a millionfold of heroin. If heroin were sold at the rate of Tobacco, the rate of death would be higher. 50% of heroin addicts die [1]. If the same number of tobacco addicts were to be heroin instead, the death rate would be terrible. Kozu ignores actual ratio - the reason drugs like heroin and meth are banned. He also supports decriminalizing heroin, meth, and all of the worst drugs in the world. In the case of drugs like heroin, freedom is only subsidiary to more important utilitarian considerations. 2. Suicide & Assisted Suicide Self interest - freedom - is an important value, but it's not the most important value. Can I quote myself? Let me quote myself: "What's the point of freedom if you sacrifice both life and happiness for it? Freedom is not the most important thing. I think the point of freedom is to give better opportunities for life and happiness. Even if decriminalizing victim-less crime might bring more freedom, it will take away a lot of life and happiness in the end. Since freedom is the ability to make choices, taking away life by assisted suicide is taking away the person's ability to make more choice. It is taking away the person's freedom to the worst degree possible. Besides, lots of people who do look to commit suicide usually are in temporary lows in mood." - they aren't in the right states of mind and so are incapable of making rational decisions. It's stupid not to deter them in some way, and even stupider to encourage them with assisted suicide when it's possible and even likely that they'd regret their choice. Suicide also has a ton terrible effects on friends and family. 3. Drunk Driving Kozu fails to see that there aren't always other drivers on the road. That means his criteria only qualifies adhoc, which means that it is not qualified as a reason to reject drunk driving as a victim-less crime. Kozu is basically claiming that since people on the road don't want drunk drivers in their midst, then all drunk driving isn't a victim-less crime. But literally you could apply this to all victim-less crimes. There's always someone who doesn't want the people committing victim-less crimes to do so. They obviously don't consent. I don't consent to allowing companies to mass market and sell heroin and cocaine. I don't consent to people buying and using them, but it's still a victim-less crime to smoke/sell these drugs. Family members probably won't consent to allowing someone among them to commit suicide. Where does the consent end? Does everyone qualify as a participant? If Kozu's criteria is accepted, there'd be no such thing as victim-less crimes. That's completely ridiculous. 4. Child prostitution If prostitution is a victim-less crime - and Kozu did actually mention prostitution as a victim-less crime earlier in round 1 - child-prostitution would also be a victim-less crime. Kozu suggests that the case in which a child is fed drugs - possibly without consent - disqualifies child prostitution as a victim-less crime. Once again, Kozu gives an ad hoc criteria because a child is fully capable of giving willing consent. Not all cases of child prostitution would be drug-induced consent, and not all cases are cases of forced-prostitution. It's the same with normal prostitution where adults can be forced without consent into prostitution too. But we aren't hearing a peep from Kozu about how adult prostitution isn't a victim-less crime. How come the same case that Kozu makes for children don't apply to adults? Kozu's case only half-applies because it doesn't comprehensively cover all cases. Unless Kozu can give a comprehensive criteria to distinguish child prostitution from normal prostitution, Kozu's accepting adult prostitution to be a victim-less crime means that he must also accept that child prostitution is a victim-less crime. And no, feeding a child drugs in order to procure consent isn't full consent because the child does not consent to take a drug which would alter her decision. 5. Tax Evasion Yes tax evasion is illegal as per the tax code -which is law, but being illegal by law doesn't distinguish a crime from being a victim-less crime. Assisted suicide is illegal by law in most places. A lot of drugs are illegal by law. Does that mean that they aren't victim-less crimes? Kozu keeps coming up with half-qualifying criteria which he applies only to some cases but not to others. His arguments and his cases have generally been pretty inconsistent. One individual refusing to pay taxes only concerns the consent of the individual and adversely affects the individual because the law will punish him. -Conclusion- Again I ask Kozu, where does the consent end? When do we stop including people as possible consenting members because at the rate Kozu is going, some cases can have more consenting members than others. By Kozu's criteria, there's no such thing as a victim-less crime. Literally every single crime and victim-less crime can be shown at some level to require someone else's consent. Where does it stop? You can't half-apply some criteria to some cases and completely ignore it for other cases!! [1] http://luxury.rehabs.com...