Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

I: "Prohibition effect" >>> each suceeding generation will conform more and more +++ This is a foolish, unproven assumption. I have given multiple examples of how prohibition fails. The Harrison Act passed in 1914 to lower and eventually stop drug use. The War on Drugs started in 1972. Drugs are still prevalent in the United States. Prostitution has been illegal in almost all individual states since about 1910. Prostitution still often occurs in the United States. Gambling started going under fire in the 1800s. Gambling is still widely rampant. II and III: "Prostitution / Casinos lessen productivity" >>> [Prostitution and gambling are untradeable and do not help Americans. ] +++ Prostitution and gambling is a way to help lower income Americans get a better income. And no one is harmed in the process. Prostitution is between consenting adults. If we outlawed all activities that we could not trade or were not overall helpful to society that would include: movies, parks, car shows, etc. THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS UNTRADEABLE OR SOLELY FUN IS NO REASON TO OUTLAW IT IN OUR FREE NATION. >>> committed relationships are a huge investment in the future +++ Banning video games, large meals and theaters would make us more productive. But we live in a free society where our Constitution has the word "not" in order to restrict government 22 times. Our government is based off freedom, not on what will make us more productive. It is a nation for the people, not for the government. A nation that would prefer to be more productive as a society that give basic freedoms is the once Soviet Union or Cuba. Not the U S of A. >>> [Gambling] throws [some] into a cycle of poverty, and for some few others, +++ In this case, investing in a business should be outlawed. If you want to start a business, you have a great chance of not succeeding, which leads to a cycle of poverty. Americans are smart enough to make their own choices if it hurts nobody else. China and Cuba make decisions for their people not America. >>> People in the first group are left more often begging +++ Americans are smart enough to make their own choices that effect them. If you are doing something that hurts nobody but yourself, it should be your freedom, as our founding fathers wanted. Let's remember the Constitution uses the word "not" 22 times to restrict government power against its people. And remember that we are talking about America, not Cuba or China, who make decisions for its people instead of allowing freedoms. >>> they already have a fat stack of cash and no job. +++ What ever happened to liberty and for Christ's sake the pursuit of happiness? III: Police Productivity >>> They DO stop thefts and murders. +++ Police could, obviously, be more productive if they had more police and more financial resources to spend stopping victims from being robbed, raped, etc. >>> our society thrives with committed relationships, this [prostitution] is decidedly bad for society in the long run. +++ No. It's not. Prostitution is sex between consenting adults. Consenting adults have sex all the time. This is a basic right. The government does not have the right to hinder that and they have failed in trying to hinder consenting adults from having sex. +++ Maybe you prefer China where they meddle in family matters like how many children you can have. The government cannot decide for people how they run their love and family life. IV: "Drugs" >>> Many people who use drugs are penalized for it. +++ But drugs are still rampant. The prisons are small compared to the amount of people using drugs and dealing drugs. Besides, violence is increased due to drugs, like it was in prohibition. Gang drug wars exist because of the criminalization of drugs. >>> People who are penalized [are] less likely to have children. +++ This is wildly speculative. And how is this a good thing? Up there, you supported family life, in your prostitution arguments. >>> people who don't do drugs will have more children on average than people who do do drugs. +++ B is untrue. Therefore, C is untrue. Your links do not link. And this is wildly speculative. >>> This leads to drug-using being slowly eliminated from society. +++ The Century anniversary of the Harrison Act is quickly approaching and your speculative defense has yet to happen? Why would this happen? It will never happen. >>> [Fees replace the tax burden] +++ THEY NEVER DO! Tax revenue could be way higher. Drug usage is huge! The taxes on drugs could bring exorbitant revenue. And right now, the government is not effectively stopping people from using drugs. I don't even think you believe what you are saying. >>> the fees could be increased. +++ Why would increase fees on Americans who have not hurt anybody but just want to be happier citizens? What happened to freedom afforded by the Constitution! ? >>> [Drugees are often killed, so less drugs] +++ That is a terrible thing to say! Are you advocating the death of drug using Americans? >>> Association does not imply causation. +++ Well, in cases of extremity it does. DRUG USAGE IN HALVED IN THE NETHERLANDS, AFTER MANY DRUGS WERE LEGALISED! This is a significant figure and to say there is no correlation is just a debate defense and contrary to common sense. >>> What would be much better in showing causation would be a study comparing Amsterdam's drug usage pre-legalization and post-legalization. +++ If this is true, then my other statistic is causaitive but [. http://www. drugpolicy. org/ library/dekort2. cfm] proves that in the 1960s when drugs were illegal in Amsterdam, the usage rate was much higher and now it is much lower. SO, AS YOU ASKED, I HAVE PROVEN THAT LEGALIZATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN PROHIBITION. CON V: Conclusion Response >>> I have shown that prohibition does indeed work, just not in the short run. +++ Amsterdam, Alcohol Prohibition, Gambling Prohibition, Drug Prohibition, and Prostitution prove that wrong. You even admitted that there are no figures to back you with your generational argument. I have all these on my side. >>> I have shown that prohibitions are not always costly, since they generate income +++ Prohibition is always costly. It takes away tax revenue and costs billions in law enforcement revenue. This is not made up with the fines. ALSO, IT TAKES SO MUCH MORE MONEY TO HOLD, TRANSPORT AND TYR A PRISONER: A LOT MORE THAN THE SMALL FINE THEY PAY. >>> While prohibition might usually cause crime, it only does so in the short run, which is insignificiant in the big picture. +++ This is never proven. YOU JUST CONCEEDED THAT PROHIBITION CAUSES CRIME, AT LEAST FOR A WHILE. I have proven with Amsterdam, Alcohol Prohibition, Gambling Prohibition, Prostitution Prohibition, and Drug Prohibition that even after a century, usage will be up and crime will dramatically increase. >>> It matters not what America is rooted on. That is an appeal to false authority. Just because the constitution says X, or the founding fathers would say X, does not mean X is right. +++ I think very highly of our Constitution. The founding fathers would be very upset to see the government they designed and the senators and presidents they essentially hired trampling all over the American people's freedoms. *** Victimless crime laws trample over Constitutional freedoms and philosophies. *** Victimless crime laws cost money in tax revenue, police personnel resources, police financial resources, court trial money, court trial time, and a lot more. *** Victimless crime laws are always ineffective. Legalisation actually lowers the use of said crime. *** Prisons will be less crowded with the few "criminals" that have been caught in the prison system. Rapists, murderers, and robbers will not be freed with parole. Thank you.