Guidelines 3
The law should only apply to a persons actions as they affect other people.
The justice systems of most countries are overloaded with "victimless crimes". Most capitalist societies have not yet realized that they have the best gauge of what their people feel is right and wrong. The free market in a capitalist system is the best indicator of the will of the people. If a person does not really want it then they will not give up their money for it. If they do want it then they will pay for it and will pay well. Witness the cost of liquor, cigarettes or adult videos, You can get a newly released feature film on DVD for $18 US and an adult title will cost $60. Consider it for a moment.
All cultures have laws regulating and prohibiting all kinds of "vices" but these are the things they really want. What if a community did not fear or regulate "vices" but instead regulated the misuse of the "vices". In the US many states have adopted "Consenting Adult Laws". which basically means that any two consenting adults can do anything they want sexually within the privacy of their own home. This however does not allow the exchange of money etc. The logic is "Who are they harming". Most people would agree "No one". What if we were to take this as far as it could go in all things.
The company I work for has a strict no drug policy. They do a drug test on all applicants and do random tests on employees. The last two weeks of last year we all had two weeks off for the holidays. When we got back there was a company wide drug test. When all was said and done I heard that 4 people lost their jobs. This is a great invasion of privacy. I would agree that an employer has the right to fire anyone who comes to work under the influence of drugs. However, what a person does on their two weeks off is their own private business. A person that sits around the house on a Saturday watching television and smoking weed is not unduly harming anyone. Now if they get in a car and drive to the store for more potato chips and Twinkies that is different. That is reckless endangerment.
The argument has been made that a person under the influence has impaired judgment and is more likely to do something that will harm others. that is true, but are we to live in fear of the small minority who would? I don't want to.