“Vices are not crimes.”

There are judgmental types who will disagree on the basis of their own convenient, highhanded 'morality'. It won't change the validity of this quote. It's nice though that 'heresy' is also no longer a crime like it was in the 'good old days' when a site of this nature would have been burned on the ashheap of great works.

Vices SHOULDN'T be crimes, but become crimes when politicians legislate them so.

Vices are not crimes so long as through a vice no crimes are committed. For instance, I personally have no problem with drunk drivers - I know several people who drive better and more alert when they're drunk than when they're sober. I do believe that there should be stricter punishments for drunk driving accidents - if they hurt or kill someone while drunk driving - then they should be locked up indefinitely - not because of their "vice" but because they allowed their own pesonal "vice" or "choices" to infringe upon the rights of another in a way that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Instead of trying to pass pre-emptive laws (victimless crime laws) - it would be far more effective to punish someone after he's violated someone else's rights... It's nice of people to try and put their own spin and definition to such words as 'morality' - but most people miss the fact that once compulsion or coercion are introduced into society, morality is gone. You cannot blame 'morality' for tyranny.

ANY behavior becomes criminal to the extent that it violates the rights of another. Vices become crimes when they cross that line, which often they do.

Vices are not crimes -- crimes are crimes. When someone commits a crime while under the 'infuence' of a vice, the vice does not in of itself become a crime. When a drunk beats his wife, the crime is beating his wife (which is a crime by itself), not being intoxicated. Making drug use a crime because a minority of drug users have robbed others to pay for their addictions is one of those 'pre-emptive' strikes against innocent people who might commit a crime in the future. Criminal 'behavior' is not a crime -- criminal acts are. We the People have no right to dictate to each other what we cannot injest, read, listen to, or watch -- so government does not have the right to do so, either.

Bingo, E Archer - beautifully articulated in a non-judgmental framework.

For certain people, engaging in a certain vices will lead to criminality every time. For these people, engaging in that vice should be criminal activity, since it is a criminally irresponsible thing to do, knowing that the result will be commission of crimes. It is the same as premeditated inciting of criminality.

Poppycock, E. Archer, well articulated sophism. And, Terry, you should learn to be judgmental before it's too late. Would someone please explain the difference between acts and behavior? Oh, there is no difference? Well, that means E. Archer is still wrong.

We don't arrest people for criminal 'behavior' -- we arrest them for specific criminal acts. There are many who say Bush's behavior is indeed criminal, but he can only be indicted for specific 'acts'. It is the criminal act that is prosecuted, not the 'behavior'. I suppose criminal behavior would also include 'sinful' acts; however, We The People are not authorized to judge and punish 'sinful' acts. We only have the right to defend our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- not to prevent socially unacceptable behavior. There is a big difference between keeping a cigarette out of my own mouth and keeping all cigarettes out of everyone else's mouths, too. Hey, Rosenthal, it's none of your business what I put in my mouth and what I do in the privacy of my own home. A police state is NOT what the founders had envisioned -- EVER. Drug war advocates do not have the slightest clue as to the origin and nature of Power in a free Republic and should not confuse prohibition with patriotism. America now imprisons more people per capita than any other country in the world! And it is ALL due to the phony War on Drugs (brought to you by Bush & Bush, Inc.) Are we so foolish that we do not think it will touch us personally? The punishment is worse than the 'crime'. Stop supporting the war on drugs! For goodness sake, big pharma sells more dangerous drugs legally everyday -- 1/3 of all hospital deaths are due to the treatment. If someone wants to smoke uranium, let 'em -- it's none of anyone else's business.

If more people would only just smoke uranium, perhaps we could get some peace and quiet. But they smoke or drink or ingest things that impare their faculties, then they drive cars, trucks, and airplanes, and kill millions every year as the result of their impairment. I do not care whether you decide to call this behavior or acts; the result is crime. Not to mention the other crime that coincides with the use of drugs.

The founders recommended carrying arms for two principal reasons: To serve as a deterrence to potential tyranny in government and to protect themselves against attack in the wilderness areas where the legal institutions could not protect them. This is not my opinion. This is based on the writings of the founders, their articles and correspondence. If they expected us to defend ourselves against attack, they would clearly expect us to defend ourselves against impaired drivers. I think repeat offenders should be shot.

AHD: behavior n. 1. The MANNER in which one behaves. || act n. 1. The PROCESS of doing or performing something: the act of thinking. 2. Something done or performed; a DEED: ... "Gee Virginia, there really IS a difference" said Alice while puffing mightily on her Maduro. Didn't your teacher ever tell you? Well, Virginia, it's like this; one describes a manner in which a deed is done and the other denotes the deed itself. How very, VERY odd these English speakers 'behave'. Let's go smoke the hookah su'more Alice.

You are out of your mind if you cannot see that the effect is exactly the same.

David -- give it up (talk about sophism). Your argument is not backed by any inherent right to prohibit vices in others. Quite simply, some people under the influence of drugs (legal or illegal) commit crimes -- but the majority do not. Therefore one cannot make the leap that drugs cause crime. Now as for driving while intoxicated, that is already a law -- no need to make drinking itself a crime. Same is true for drugs legal and illegal. Freedom means bearing the Responsibility that comes with it. If you want to intoxicate yourself, then you have to bear the responisibility of your actions while under the influence. That is the crux of living in a free Republic. Life is a risk -- those that prefer Safety instead of Liberty will have neither.

Your sophism is limitless. I guess you are not going to define to act and to behave. You are skirting the issue raised by yourself, and refusing to respond to reason, calling it something else. Drug abuse is inarguably linked to criminality. Criminality not linked to drug abuse has nothing to do with my point. People have a right to define their society, which is why society labels as criminal a wide range of acts/behaviors. That these sometimes change over time does not negate that the crime is a crime.

Terry Berg has already posted definitions of behavior and act, so I thought that would suffice. In the context of the quote in question, "Vices are not crimes," it is indeed true and even most laws reflect that a 'vice' is a personal judgement, an opinion, therefore, not in and of itself criminal. As far as enforcing others to abstain from these 'vices', I have no authority to prohibit you from your vices -- nor you, mine. Simple, straight-forward concept of a free Republic. Perhaps we should be defining the word 'crime' instead.

E Archer; Trust me, it may be fun, uh, ok then, it really IS fun, but you don't really NEED to waste your energy labeling anyone - ever. That's already done FOR you by the sandwich board they wear when they unceremoniously open their raincoat to expose their judgmental shortcomings. - "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Albert Einstein - That said, it's soooo tempting that no one can really fault you for wanting to lower yourself to their level if only for a moment of fun. The term 'down and dirty' does sometimes have real appeal. Resisting it CAN ... sometimes leave you with a bloody tongue - LOL.

Case in point. No supporting text from any reference. - 'Indicates' is NOT the same as text. It's an 'interpretation' DIFFERENT from the text. Predictable. Evidently, someone is wishing I were dumb enough to do illegal (or any) drugs. FYI; you CAN lure me with a Starbuck's though - caffein and sugar - yum. I guess I know less about jails than I should. Gotta brush up on that stuff. Hmm, David, with his obsession about drugs, seems to know a lot about that sort of thing. Maybe he can fill me in. - "But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice!" - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - 1844-1900.

David L. Rosenthal, sir, though 'act' and 'behave' may be used interchangeably, their noun forms cannot. And if I read correctly, then the entire issue only mentions how the noun forms can be interchangeable, which they can not be. The quote itself can be very much true, a vice itself is not a crime, but the inevitably attached strings to the vice can be harmful (and therefore can be interpreted as criminal).

"Vices are not crimes so long as through a vice no crimes are committed."

This is an example of conflating terms for ideological convenience: The statement is internally inconsistent insofar as the term 'vice' and 'crime' are conditionally made equal through the phrase 'so long as'. This is sloppy thinking at its worst. 'Vices' are vices, 'crimes' are crimes. Their coincident occurrence doesn't bleed the qualities of one into the other.

This is precisely the sort of conflation, which allows one to "blame 'morality' for tyranny."

Mr. Spooner is usually right and this quote is no exception. The so called war on drugs is an example. People went to jail for the "horrible" crime of smoking pot and even having small amounts in their possession. We stopped burning witches at the stake but vestiges of puritanism still abound in this country.

Since the Common Law is not so common any more, perhaps a definition of 'crime' is in order. In order for an offense to be considered criminal, it had to be committed with bad intent, the Latin 'mens rea,' meaning 'guilty mind.' The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,' which means 'the act is not culpable (i.e. blameworthy) unless the mind is guilty.' There must be an 'actus reus,' or 'guilty act,' accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. To bump into someone accidentally is not a crime, even if you break the fellow's nose, but to punch someone in the nose is a crime, unless however you are defending yourself from harm -- this is something a jury would decide; no mens rea means not guilty.

As far as drug prohibition goes, there is no 'victim' and thus no guilt -- there is no mens rea. Note that all these drug 'laws' are part of the Uniform Commercial Code which was originally restricted to the commercial law jurisdiction. But since commercial law (i.e. colorable law, statutory law) has been merged with common law, commercial offenses are now treated as criminal. The War on Drugs is a racket for the government to impose all kinds of warrantless searches and property seizures without due process and contrary to the protections of the Constitution. It centralizes power to Washington, and pads the bank accounts of police/military agencies and law offices -- as well as the numerous drug cartels that are in bed with politicians world-wide. Drug prohibition is only possible because of the corruption of the 'legal system' itself.

great discussions

"Vices are not crimes." But in today's society all too often a person's own thoughts are unfortunately considered criminal by progressive thinking, thought criminals!

Very lively discussions I'm enjoying it, thank you Mr. Archer from New York City you offer much to think about and I agree with your conclusions regarding the war on drugs. It has led to the militarization of America's police forces and has aided in the deterioration of our rights through activist courts. It's obvious that the wrong lessons were learned in the well-meaning but delusional endeavor with alcohol prohibition, it spawned the emergence of organized crime and affected law enforcement response similar to the problem we are having today with it.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C. S. Lewis

"It takes a village…" ~ Hillary Clinton

The ceaseless theme of the modern American progressive welfare state, and let us not forget job security for the elitist political class.