© Karl Hahn 1996. You may distribute this material provided it remains unaltered and that it is accompanied by this notice.
If political incorrectness means whatever is politically out of vogue, then it would appear that the compass that guides us to the land of political incorrectness has spun recently. Just a few years ago, the moral and cultural relativists held sway in our political institutions. But today, judging by the rhetoric I hear on the floor of Congress and by the frequency with which Rush Limbaugh's face appears on my television, a person risks being hooted down for suggesting that moral and cultural issues have anything but absolute answers. Does that mean political incorrectness itself is relative? And while the absolutists reign, is it politically incorrect to espouse that it is? And is this whole line of alleged thought just too convoluted and vague to mean anything at all? If so, then it is in the grand tradition of discussions on what is or is not politically correct.
And so, to be incorrect even about that, I shall deal here only with specifics. Here's one to brighten your day. I'm sure I can earn the wrath of both conservatives and feminists by suggesting that our attitude toward the tradition, honored by time if nothing else, of some women exchanging sexual favors for cash might be in need of revision. Shall I argue that prostitution is a good thing? No. I don't feel that it is. Shall I argue that it is a victimless crime? In the neighborhood where I work, trashy-looking women regularly accost me with smiles and hand signals, undoubtably with the intention of plying their trade on me. Some of them are not much older than my teenage daughter. I feel like grabbing them by the shoulders and shaking them and yelling, "Can't you see what you're doing to yourself?" But I don't because it's unlikely to do any good, and besides I'd probably get into some kind of trouble if I did. Many feminists would argue that these foot soldiers of the sex industry (to use a politically correct phrase) are victims. And they have a point. Others would argue that many who patronize these victims become victims themselves of sexually transmitted diseases.
But if you hold to the position that those of us who have reached the age of majority are responsible for our own actions, then those who have attained that age and subsequently become victims have volunteered for victimhood. Likewise those of majority age who catch sexually transmitted diseases as a result of being on either side of the transaction have also volunteered. The only involuntary victims are the wives and girlfriends who, in turn, catch it from them, as well as those who complain about having to tolerate prostitutes who enterprise in their neighborhoods.
If there were any reason to believe that law enforcement efforts were likely to curb prostitution, then the wisdom of its pursuing that end would be arguable. But there is plenty of evidence that their efforts have little or no effect on the trade. Virtually none of the women I know would consider becoming prostitutes even if it were legal for them to do so. And of the countless women I don't know who do become prostitutes, I doubt that many of them seriously contemplate any career change after having passed through the digestive tract of our justice system.
So I ask, if women of legal age were permitted to earn a living by selling sexual favors, wouldn't there be fewer rather than more victims? Once above board, wouldn't their industry be subject to government regulation, including especially health inspection? Wouldn't a population of healthy prostitutes reduce the risk to the wives and girlfriends of their clients? Wouldn't clients, fearing arrest for engaging underage girls, be motivated to stick with licensed prostitutes? Wouldn't prostitutes who are assaulted by their clients be more likely to press charges against them? Wouldn't it be possible to zone prostitution into its own district? And then wouldn't only those who voluteered to live there be burdened by the proximity of whores?
And couldn't the money squandered on rounding up prostitutes be better spent offering those who are weary of that life safe passage to a better one?
But such a plan is only viable if those in control are more concerned with reducing the number of victims than they are with either appearing righteous (in the case of religious conservatives) or exhibiting how vulnerable women are to being the victims of us evil males (in the case of feminists). For now both of those positions are populated with plenty of folks who suckle on their own indignation. So don't hold your breath waiting for them to do anything effective toward solving the real problems of real people.
And what could be more politically incorrect than taking the side of whores and johns? How about taking the side of junkies. Again, it's hard to argue that it's a victimless crime. Recreational drugs clearly debilitate at least some if not most of their users. Yet these unfortunates did indeed volunteer for victimhood. I have yet to hear about some bad guy holding anybody down and forcing cocaine up his or her nose. But the question must be, to what degree does our current method of dealing with the problem reduce the number of victims? We spend countless public dollars attempting to confiscate illegal drugs and incarcerating those we find in possession of them. Yet still, I have no doubt that I could, with little effort, obtain my own supply of them if that were my desire. Those of us who don't use drugs choose that path not because drugs are hard to get, but because we have higher ambitions than being high all the time.
We certainly don't hear complaints from drug users about how hard it is to find a supply, only that that supply costs so much that they must obtain the price by illegal means. And that makes you and me involuntary victims of the problem. Even those of us who never become the victim of a drug-motivated criminal still pay in the form of higher insurance rates. And you might even argue that we pay additionally in the form of higher taxes to cover the cost of incarcerating all the drug criminals we do catch.
Still another way that we pay is in the curtailment of our fourth and fifth amendment rights. United States law now permits law enforcement officers to seize anybody's cash, motor vehicle, or other property and keep it without ever convicting that person or anyone else of any crime. They need only have "reasonable cause" to believe that the cash or property was used in some illegal drug transaction. Such reasonable cause can be as little as a drug-sniffing dog indicating that your wad of fifty-dollar bills has traces of cocaine in it. Yet studies have shown that virtually all U.S. currency becomes contaminated with traces of cocaine after having been in circulation for a few months. So essentially the police can seize your cash just because they don't like you -- or more likely because you seem to be a good source of revenue for their local constabulary.
We also pay because the illegal drug trade funnels large sums of money, and therefore power, into the hands of evil men. Men such as these corrupt our institutions, including our law enforcement establishments, with their cash, and they set a poor moral example for our young folks with their illgotten yet opulent lifestyles. We have seen how close to the top they rise in foreign countries such as Colombia, and there is no reason to believe that they could never rise that far here. Their influence is undoubtably no small part of the constituency for keeping the drug laws as they are. For if the free market in their wares were permitted to operate in the open, what do you suppose would happen to the exorbitant prices they now command -- especially if the trade operated under government regulation designed to keep the price low.
It is discomforting though to think of our public institutions catering to the self destructive impulses of drug addicts. We don't want to be a party to their demise. Yet we can't help it. As things stand, the illegal drug industry is locked in a never-ending dance with the drug divisions of law enforcement. Each is dependent upon the other. Thieves steal, whores turn tricks, gangsters murder, all to the end of keeping the music playing. The fraction of the blame for the drug user's misery that is not his own must be shared by both dancers.
Advocates of the status quo argue that legalizing drugs condones them -- that it would send a message to the public that doing drugs is ok. Do they think that only the law has the power to ostracize? There is no law against picking one's nose in public, yet most people choose not to because of what others will think. In the case of drugs, legalizing them does not mean employers would have to hire drug users, or even tolerate drug use among their employees when it is discovered. We could still jail anybody who provides drugs to minors. The state would still have no reason to suffer any children to be raised by drug-addicted parents. Society in general could still rally its information resources in a campaign to encourage its citizens to abstain from drugs. And it could still make social lepers out of those who do not heed the call.
They also argue that drug use would increase if drugs were legal. One counter to that is that legalization reduces the number of involuntary victims, but at the price of some voluntary ones. Such calculus, though, is unpersuasive. You can argue all day about how many, how much, and how few. If, however, the increase in voluntary victims could be held to zero following legalization, then the price is certainly low enough. But, argues the opposition, following the end of prohibition, drunkeness did increase, though marginally. Why should we expect this to be any different? Following the the end of prohibition, and even during prohibition, drinking was socially acceptable. We have permitted beverage sellers to stage glitzy advertising campaigns that encourage consumption of their products. Following legalization, we need not tolerate any of that. The message ought to continue that drug use is bad and abstinence good. And we would have all the money saved from law enforcement with which to deliver that message. Drug use is not now socially acceptable, nor need it become so even though we would not sanction it with the threat of jail.
Would such a plan be a panacea? No. Drug addicts would still be a festering sore in our society. But that sore needn't sicken the rest of the body. I'm sorry that drug addicts degrade and destroy themselves. It's a tragedy, and I am happy to have some of my tax and charity dollars go to offering them a path away from ruin. But whether or not they continue on the path to ruin has little to do with throwing them and their suppliers in jail. And I would be happier if those bent on self destruction destroy themselves without threatening to break into my home in the process. If the medicine we now administer against our drug problem offered a cure, then it might be justified. But it costs a bundle and only poisons our society further, while the sore festers on and on.
Whatever of yours you offer to enrich your family,
Whatever of yours you offer to enrich your community,
Whatever of yours you offer to enrich your nation,
Truly goes to enrich yourself.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were.
Know that the bleeding heart is an ancient symbol for the suffering of Christ upon the cross. So I reject the label, but only because I am unworthy of it.
Click here to rage against anything you see here