Tim Worstall

The Ipswich Murders

Hurrah! Hurrah!

At last, someone with something sensible to say about these murders. Alice Miles essentially states that drugs should be legalised (or at least on the NHS) and that prostitution should be too.

That these two things should happen for moral reasons alone is well known. For someone to be free requires that they own their own body. Such ownership carries the implication that they have the freedom to ingest as they wish and to offer gonads and other bodily parts for pay or play as they wish.

In

37 responses

  1. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Rubbish.

    Reply
  2. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    For the avoidance of doubt, Tim, does this so called freedom to do as wish with one’s own person include the right to sell oneself into chattel slavery if one so wishes?
    Tim adds: Why are you against marriage Martin?

    Reply
  3. Lysias Avatar
    Lysias

    If there was one thing those girls could have done to protect themselves it was not to be prostitutes. You would imagine that prostitution was in the common good rather than a mutually degrading act. Yes making it legal would remove it from the criminal underworld and black economy, but there’s no reason it can’t be both legal and socially stigmatic.

    Reply
  4. Johnathan Pearce Avatar
    Johnathan Pearce

    I used to live in Ipswich between 1989 and 1994 and enjoyed living in the area. This is shocking to me as anyone who has been brought up in Suffolk and come to love that oft-overlooked part of the world.
    There has been a bit of a campaign to press for legalised brothels in Ipswich for some time. Whatever one thinks about prostitution, this activity goes on and it is safer to have it legalised than not. This not only applies to preventing murderers, but also may reduce incidence of sexually transmitted disease, curb organised crime, etc.
    As for the case for drug legalisation, I used to take a pretty full-on libertarian stance but I wonder about the merits of legalising incredibly addictive stuff like crack. I think you have to take the prevailing state of civil society into account. If you have a society enfeebled by the Welfare State and a dependency culture, it is different to one in which there are strong families and a culture of self-reliance and self-respect. Context matters.
    Martin’s second post question may seem to be a good one but it makes no sense to me. To sell oneself into slavery is presumably, to agree to surrender permanently any form of liberty. What sane person is going to do that even if their personal circumstances are dire? In nearly every case where one might cite an example of such voluntary servitude, one normally finds a coercive force at work.

    Reply
  5. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tim,
    Without wishing to sound like neither a loony nor a bore, I can honestly say I have never met a heroin addict whose life would have been improved by the drug’s legalisation.
    Suggesting that heroin be provided free of charge on the NHS is a slippery slope. What would be next? Vodka for alkies?
    Brothels for sufferers of satyriasis?
    Free fags for smokers?
    Where would the line be drawn?
    What incentive would have the addict have to wean themself off the drug?
    Everyone knows the NHS is a behemothic exercise in resource allocation subject to the most minute political control – how long would it be before the stories of waiting lists for free heroin started to appear?
    Or the stories of heroin addicts being refused the drug if they’ve fallen off the wagon?
    You do realise that by even suggesting this policy could be adopted you’re advocating an expansion of the state? The cost of which would ultimately have to be borne by the taxpayers?
    Tim, I’m sorry to be blunt but this post is an outburst of libertarian ideology at its most extreme. Precisely why have so many cultures and societies proscribed prostitution?
    You can wend your way through the Marxist or proto-Marxist analyses to the conclusion that it’s all a consequence of patriarchies’ need to preserve property rights; or else you can conclude that societies have recognised that in order to ensure social stability, best achieved by stable families and the exercise of self control by their members, it is not in that society’s best interests to permit the performance of humanity’s most intimate act for gain.
    Unfortunately, prostitution and drug taking are not activities which can be justified by citation of either Bastiat or the Austrian school.

    Reply
  6. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tim,
    To equate marriage with chattel slavery is facetious.
    What slave has ever been permitted to sue his master in order to gain his freedom?
    Having been given his freedom, what slave has ever been able to lay a claim against his former master’s property?
    What slave enters into slavery expecting that his master will share his property with him as an equal partner?
    Jonathan,
    With all due respect, the second post question was a good one. Any absolute right of liberty must include the right to surrender that liberty voluntarily – otherwise the right is not absolute.
    You write,
    “What sane person is going to do that even if their personal circumstances are dire? In nearly every case where one might cite an example of such voluntary servitude, one normally finds a coercive force at work. ”
    By the same token, what sane person takes smack? Goes cottaging? Or kerb crawling? Goes to the pub armed with a knife?
    Every day our courts are full of people who satisfy the legal definition of sanity but who do such crazy things.
    Tim adds: ‘What slave has ever been permitted to sue his master in order to gain his freedom?’
    James Somerset.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Somerset

    Reply
  7. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Re marriage and chattel slavery –
    What slave has ever possessed the right to have his slavery annulled on the basis that it was entered into through force or fear?
    You can do that with marriage, you know…

    Reply
  8. Tristan Avatar
    Tristan

    I fully agree with Tim.
    On prostitution: Prostitution has been made illegal largely due to religion. You could probably trace this back to Judaism seeking to stamp out the temple prostitutes.
    In some parts of the US prostitution is legal (Nevada for one), in parts of Australia it is and I think some parts of Europe prostitution is legal.
    There will always be a demand for prostitutes, we should let it be legal and reasonably open for the sakes of both parties to the exchange.
    As for drugs: Will the lives of drug addicts be improved by legalisation? Well, they will have access to commercial, good quality supplies, so in one way yes. We already supply help to alcoholics and smokers to kick their addictions, so why not drug addicts in the same way? We would probably get commercial solutions like nicorette patches for smokers.
    We must also look at the effect on society, legalisation would help cut drug related crime. It would remove the dealer’s income, they may get you addicted, but then you can buy legal, known quality drugs to feed your habit rather than unknown quality illegal drugs from organised crime.

    Reply
  9. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    Martin,
    “Without wishing to sound like neither a loony nor a bore, I can honestly say I have never met a heroin addict whose life would have been improved by the drug’s legalisation.”
    Probably true. The ones who OD because of unregulated supply often end up dead.
    “What incentive would have the addict have to wean themself off the drug?”
    I don’t know. I haven’t read Tony Adams or Betty Ford’s biography.

    Reply
  10. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tristan,
    See the above reference to proto-Marxist analyses.
    With all due respect to Nevada, the state is little more than a series of lines on desert maps. What native industry did it possess before gambling?
    The efficacy of the ‘they have legalised prostitution in Nevada’ argument depends on whether or not the Las Vegas and Reno Police Departments still operate vice squads. It is controlled in certain circumstances – does the existence of the ‘chicken ranches’ mean that it is absolutely legal at all times and under all circumstances in that state?
    And what about the other 49?
    Let’s agree that there is always a demand for prostitution; so let’s see you take that argument to its logical conclusion and argue the case for the legalisation of child pornography and snuff movies on the basis that there will always be a demand for them.
    There will be, you know; but it doesn’t mean they should be legal.
    What makes you sure addicts receiving heroin on the NHS would be getting good gear? If memory serves the NHS has outsourced its purchasing functions to DHL. DHL operates for profit; without wishing to cast aspersions on any corporation or entity, the involvement of ‘for profit’ entities in such a process would bring its own risks – bleach in the smack and so on.
    The alternative would be to hire drug dealers to do the purchasing. What sort of social message would that send out?
    In respect of your proposal for a ‘smackpatch’, that’s the kind of goofball idea one would expect to hear from the Adam Smith Institute, right up there with the sniffer bees and the space elevators. Do you smoke? I do. Gum does’t work by itself. Patches don’t work by themselves. Such aids are useful only where the user possesses resolve – the will to quit.
    And if nicotine’s a hardcore addiction, heroin’s 100 times worse.
    Would legalisation cut ‘drug related crime’? Who can tell? Let me narrate a very short story on that argument’s pitfalls.
    Early in its life, the Scottish Parliament legislated that ‘the elderly shall have free personal care’. Landmark policy, dancing in the streets, etc.,
    What happened? A waiting list. They hadn’t thought it through.
    If it possessed the political will to do so, Parliament could decriminalise all narcotics abuse tomorrow – by itself, that would not guarantee any reduction in drug related crime levels without some element of planning as to what would happen to the junkies. There would need to be some measure of support for them, probably involving taxpayer provision of narcotics. This would not only be the cause of enormous political controversy but would also produce increased costs for taxpayers.
    Still think it’s a good idea?
    Tim adds: ‘And if nicotine’s a hardcore addiction, heroin’s 100 times worse.’
    Not true actually. Generally thought that nicotine withdrawal and cravings are far worse than heroin.

    Reply
  11. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tim A.
    Huh?
    Ratio of deaths to users? Ration of those who don’t OD to those who do?
    I’ve never read either Tony Adams’ or Betty Ford’s bios either – however, one would not imagine that their will to quit would have been bolstered by being able to go to the GP to get a bottle of vodka on prescription.
    Tim W,
    Sorry, not even close with Somerset’s case.
    Where was the case heard? England.
    What was the ratio decidendi of Somerset’s case? That slavery did not exist in England.
    Somerset’s Case did not concern Somerset gaining his freedom from slavery in England – it concerned having his liberty in England affirmed.
    Two entirely different things.
    Pace Michael Caine, I’ve just had a brilliant idea…
    Absolute liberty to do what one wishes with one’s person must be absolute; accordingly, absolute liberty must include the right to be able to surrender that liberty voluntarily.
    Agreed?
    Let’s take it one step further.
    If one possesses absolute liberty to do what one wishes with one’s person, that right must also extend to the surrender of one’s life for gain.
    If A possesses the right to do whatever they wish with their own person, there would be absolutely nothing stopping them entering a contract with B for B to pay them £X on condition that B is able to kill them in order to make a snuff movie.
    Food for thought…
    And I have to say I’ve never come across any whore who whores for fags alone.

    Reply
  12. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [The efficacy of the ‘they have legalised prostitution in Nevada’ argument depends on whether or not the Las Vegas and Reno Police Departments still operate vice squads.]
    Prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas and Reno by city ordnance.
    On nicotine versus heroin, opinions differ; it is complicated by the fact that the pattern of dosage matters and very few heroin users take 20 tiny hits of heroin a day.
    Martin is right on one point however; I really do not understand why people who are keen on these compromise solutions of prescription heroin and government-licensed brothels believe that this would give us the best features of vice and government rather than all the disadvantages of both.

    Reply
  13. Serf Avatar
    Serf

    Surely legalisation of heroin and handing it out on the NHS are two different issues.
    dsquared…
    good question, but prostitutes could hardly be worse off under the watchful eye of Elf & Safety rather than Pimps.
    Martin…
    o let’s see you take that argument to its logical conclusion and argue the case for the legalisation of child pornography and snuff movies
    Thats not a logical conclusion at all. One involves children who are not legally recognised as having the ability to make such decisions, the other involves killing people, which last time I checked was frowned upon even by libertarians.

    Reply
  14. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [prostitutes could hardly be worse off under the watchful eye of Elf & Safety rather than Pimps]
    this is not exactly an either/or situation. It is possible that the managers of state-run brothels will combine the commercial acumen of pimps with the conscience of social workers, but also possible that it will be the other way round.

    Reply
  15. Johnathan Pearce Avatar
    Johnathan Pearce

    “By the same token, what sane person takes smack? Goes cottaging? Or kerb crawling? Goes to the pub armed with a knife?”
    Martin, you are not showing a lot of logic here. A person who sells himself/herself into slavery presumably knows that they are deliberately choosing to surrender their freedom, while the examples you cite are of desperate, and often deluded people who do not think about the consequences.
    If two consenting adults wish to have sex for money, for the life of me I cannot see who has any business telling them not do so. By banning the practice, one simply takes the problem into the twilight zone and contribute, for whatever well-intentioned reasons, to the sort of horrors we are seeing now. If these women had been able to ply their trade in a legal way then maybe such crimes might not be so easy to commit. Of course, there will still be risks.
    “Without wishing to sound like neither a loony nor a bore, I can honestly say I have never met a heroin addict whose life would have been improved by the drug’s legalisation.”
    Well, I used to be a crime reporter in my former life and I have met enough people who work in the criminal justice and penal profession to take the view that the War on Drugs, even if one assumes its intentions to be benign, has come with massive costs. As others on this thread have pointed out, those costs have to be taken into account, whatever one’s own moral view on people who injest narcotics or pay for getting their leg over.
    I also think Martin is being unfair in accusing Tim of taking some rigid ideological position here. Skepticism about the merits of banning consensual acts between adults is hardly some dogma, but a view derived from decades of hard-won experience of social policy in Britain and many other countries.
    brds

    Reply
  16. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    “I’ve never read either Tony Adams’ or Betty Ford’s bios either – however, one would not imagine that their will to quit would have been bolstered by being able to go to the GP to get a bottle of vodka on prescription.”
    What are you suggesting? That professional footballers would drink more if they could get it cheaper from a GP? Most of them can afford a few bottles of vodka without much bother.
    So, there’s something else going on that isn’t about cost or legality, but things like taking control of their lives, health, family relationships and work.
    However, some people aren’t at a point where they want to quit their drug, so what should be done is to deal with that on a harm-reduction basis. In the case of heroin, probably prescription – regular dosage, uncontaminated, reduction in burglary, enforcement and gang criminality.

    Reply
  17. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    DSquared,
    Thank you for clarifying that the State of Nevada does not permit prostitution at all times and under all circumstances; an important rebuttal to all arguments for legalising prostitution based on the bald premise that ‘it’s allowed in Nevada’ – the rebuttal I was making.
    Serf,
    See comments above concerning ‘Free personal care for the elderly in Scotland’. Legalising an activity is one thing – managing the consequences quite another.
    My point in relation to arguments being taken to their logical conclusions is, with all due respect, quite correct. A previous poster had argued for the legalisation of prostitution on the basis that there would always be a demand for it. All I did was invite the commentor to agree with me that if that is a reason for legalising a prohibited activity like prostitution it must also by necessity be a reason for legalising all prohibited activities.
    You mentioned childrens’ lack of capacity to consent to actions. Of course, I agree with you – the previous poster had forgotten to mention it.
    Johnathan,
    You’re playing fast and loose with the meanings of the word ‘sane’ and ‘sanity’.
    You’ve just flip-flopped into agreeing with my proposition that a sane person can sell themself into chattel slavery (which is the best argument against permitting the voluntary sale of human organs for gain, because it’s a very short ethical step from commodifying bits of human beings to commodifying whole ones) – but however desperate and deluded cottagers, junkies, and kerb-crawlers might be 99.999% of them satisfy the legal definition of sanity. To be desperate or deluded is not to be insane; they might be mitigation, depending on circumstances, but their presence does not automatically render the desperate delusional incapax.
    You are entitled to have your opinion on the sale of sex for money – I happen to think it’s wrong. It spreads disease and encourages violence against women, both by pimps and johns.
    And it plays hells with property prices. Residents don’t like being hassled on their doorsteps, or having their doorbells being rung at all hours by old men wanting to know if Tatjana’s available.
    What is causing the horrors now is not prostitution but a nutter running round Ipswich killing women who happen to be prostitutes. One doesn’t wish to sound cold-hearted, but prostitution is a commercial activity – it involves risk. Even although they might have been dying for a fix, the victims went on to the streets knowing that that night they could be stabbed, slashed, beaten up or murdered, just as on any other night.
    That is not to say ‘They had it coming’, but just to point out that prostitution is an extremely high risk business and usually not undertaken lightly. Whores tend to be quite thick-skinned about the risks they run; goes with the territory.
    Legalising prostitution would in no way diminish those risks. They could be shagging like Duracell bunnies in five star hotels, surrounded by phalanxes of bodyguards, and they would still encounter whackos intent on doing them injury. That is the nature of the beast.
    Stamping out violence doled out to prostitutes can only be achieved by stamping out prostitution.
    Of course the war on drugs has come with massive costs – but those costs have only been incurred because it was recognised that the abuse of powerful narcotics would produce worse consequences if unregulated than it would do if regulated; a proposition I’ve never seen any substantive argument against.
    Johnathan, other views which might be ‘derived from decades of hard-won experience of social policy in Britain’ might include the necessity of suppressing Islam on the basis that its values are incompatible with British civic values and scrapping the NHS on the basis that’s it’s nothing but a black hole that sucks up money and which deludes the British people into thinking that healthcare has no costs.
    Putting the first of those statements into practice might have saved 52 lives; while implementing the second would do wonders for the waiting lists.
    It’s all just a question of perspective.

    Reply
  18. chris Avatar
    chris

    First of all being paid for sex isn’t illegal, it’s the various bits around it that are such as soliciting (nobody likes solicitors do they) and pimping. Hence escorting is a perfectly legal business. And if brothels where legalised that that would take significant numbers off the streets, as it is much easier and safer to work in one than hanging around on a street corner. They aren’t stupid its their job, and should a better working enviroment come available they will go for it. Also by getting prostitution inside a more normal legal framework with employment contracts and the like it would be much easier for the workers to secure better conditions. Just as it is easier for workers with proper contracts to secure better conditions compared to casual labour employed by gang masters.

    Reply
  19. Johnathan Pearce Avatar
    Johnathan Pearce

    “You are entitled to have your opinion on the sale of sex for money – I happen to think it’s wrong. It spreads disease and encourages violence against women, both by pimps and johns.”
    And those problems get worse when it is illegal, which is why people have campaigned for it to be legalised. QED.
    “And it plays hells with property prices. Residents don’t like being hassled on their doorsteps, or having their doorbells being rung at all hours by old men wanting to know if Tatjana’s available.”
    It sure does. Another good reason to get the sex trade off the streets and legalise it so it will not cause this sort of damage to property values.
    “Stamping out violence doled out to prostitutes can only be achieved by stamping out prostitution.
    Why not abolish Original Sin? You are searching for the “crackdown” on X or Y to achieve your desired outcome, ignoring the costs of what happens when consensual, I repeat consensual, activity between adults, is banned. Folk like you, however well-meaning, always overlook the Law of Unintended Consequences in this case.
    “Of course the war on drugs has come with massive costs – but those costs have only been incurred because it was recognised that the abuse of powerful narcotics would produce worse consequences if unregulated than it would do if regulated; a proposition I’ve never seen any substantive argument against.”
    Are you seriously contending that banning substances that people want has not played a key part in inflating the price? That makes no sense at all. The law of supply and demand has not been suspended.
    “Johnathan, other views which might be ‘derived from decades of hard-won experience of social policy in Britain’ might include the necessity of suppressing Islam on the basis that its values are incompatible with British civic values and scrapping the NHS on the basis that’s it’s nothing but a black hole that sucks up money and which deludes the British people into thinking that healthcare has no costs.”
    Authortarian nonsense, half-trths and a truth. How are you going to suppress Islam in a free society, pray? I’d be interested to know how you do that.
    I am opposed to the NHS, a soviet model of health care that most people in this country are as yet unwilling to give up, alas.

    Reply
  20. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [Are you seriously contending that banning substances that people want has not played a key part in inflating the price? That makes no sense at all. The law of supply and demand has not been suspended.]
    in the interests of a fair twelve-round fight, I must now point out that if you are going to say “The law of supply and demand has not been suspended” you must not at some future point in this argument claim that the legalisation of hard drugs would not result in a large increase in the number of users and addicts.
    thanks, now break! gloves up! ding ding!
    Tim adds: Well, Gary Beckers has certainly published a paper stating that legalisation and taxation would lead to a decrease in drug taking. I wrote about it for the SAU. it’s somewhere on their blog.

    Reply
  21. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [Well, Gary Beckers has certainly published a paper stating that legalisation and taxation would lead to a decrease in drug taking]
    so then he’s said that the laws of supply and demand *have* been suspended then.

    Reply
  22. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Chris,
    So you would envisage an arrangement for legalised prostitution whereby Sandy and Mandy clock in at 22.00 and clock out at 06.00 on a wage of £1,500 a week, the johns pay VAT, the girls all get regular health checks, they’re all on final salary pensions, they’re covered by the Working Time Directive and everyone’s in the T & G. Fair?
    Let’s iron out some of the other practical humps, so to speak.
    How would their employers, the brothels, get round our laws against discrimination in hiring practices? These people would in the business of selling sex for money. That means they will want to employ those whores best able to sell sex.
    They will want to hire the best looking, and sadly probably also the youngest, whores they can find.
    Candy turns up for an interview, aged 32 and still handsome but with a few of life’s more bitter experiences etched on her face. ‘Too old and too ugly!’ cries Hoxha the Albanian brothelkeeper.
    Would Candy have title to sue Hoxha for discriminating against her?
    If not, where is Candy most likely to go then?
    The street. Problem not solved.
    Here’s another one, and from the point of view of the girls’ safety, much more important.
    Legalised prostitutes would presumably be able to enjoy freedom of movement between brothels, and be part of the flexible workforce like the rest of us.
    Would the johns be considered their customers or the brothel’s?
    Now if Brandy kept a little black book containing all her gentlemens’ private mobile numbers and gets headhunted away from Hoxha by his cousin Ylber, would Hoxha have an enforceable right to prevent Brandy from contacting those gentlemen which would not involve her face and an open razor?
    Brandy might be an exceptionally industrious whore, and might be able to cover her costs without the little black book – but if Hoxha does have a legal right to prevent her from contacting them upon her joining another brothel, where might she be going then?
    The street. Problem not solved.
    And do not think for a moment that the same pressures would not apply to brothels run on either co-operative or partnership models.
    Johnathan,
    “And those problems get worse when it is illegal, which is why people have campaigned for it to be legalised. QED.”
    No, D is not QE’d unless and until evidence is produced.
    So let’s see some evidence that disease would not be spread as widely and violence against women would occur less often in legal rather than illegal prostitution.
    “It sure does. Another good reason to get the sex trade off the streets and legalise it so it will not cause this sort of damage to property values.”
    Except in the places where the brothels are…
    Hmmm…
    “Why not abolish Original Sin? You are searching for the “crackdown” on X or Y to achieve your desired outcome, ignoring the costs of what happens when consensual, I repeat consensual, activity between adults, is banned. Folk like you, however well-meaning, always overlook the Law of Unintended Consequences in this case.”
    What would the costs of stamping out prostitution actually be? You’ve mentioned costs – what would those costs be?
    What Unintended Consequences might stamping out prostitution have? One might be that it could give a proportion of the 95% of British prostitutes with serious drugs problems a serious incentive to get off drugs.
    Not a bad unintended consequence, as far as unintended consequences go…
    “Are you seriously contending that banning substances that people want has not played a key part in inflating the price? That makes no sense at all. The law of supply and demand has not been suspended.”
    Did I suggest that it had been? You mentioned costs – I had thought you were referring to costs such as policing and imprisonment, which have obviously risen as a result of the regulation of narcotics.
    If you’re talking about the actual street price of the drugs, that’s one of the risks involved in taking something you shouldn’t.
    Who cares what the street price is? Really? Who cares? It’s not germane to this argument.
    “Authortarian nonsense, half-trths and a truth. How are you going to suppress Islam in a free society, pray? I’d be interested to know how you do that.”
    I can guess what the authoritarian nonsense was, not so sure about the half truth and the truth.
    Suppress Islam? Dead easy. Marginalise Islam the way we marginalised Communism when we still possessed a measure of cultural confidence and didn’t waste time debating the legalisation of prostitution. Communists were still able to be Communists – it was, after all, a free society.
    Tim,
    Becker’s a Nobel Laureate, so obviously his words carry a measure of weight – however one can’t help but think he’s reached more of a shamanistic than scientific conclusion.

    Reply
  23. Johnathan Pearce Avatar
    Johnathan Pearce

    “Suppress Islam? Dead easy. Marginalise Islam the way we marginalised Communism when we still possessed a measure of cultural confidence and didn’t waste time debating the legalisation of prostitution. Communists were still able to be Communists – it was, after all, a free society.”
    “Dead easy”. Communism was defeated in large part because those parts of the world that practised it were slaughterhouses, full of poverty, misery and death. It was a secular ideology that failed on its own terms.
    The rest of your comments miss the point by a mile. You seem confident that one can stamp out prostitution, but you seem remarkably coy about spelling out the degree of coercion, of intrusion into people’s freedoms, that would be necessary to achieve that. I suspect, Martin, that you will the ends of a drug-free, prostitute-free, sin-free Britain), but have not exactly spelled out how that desirable state of affairs might be achieved.
    I don’t see much point in debating this point further. You seem blind to the very considerable costs of banning consenting acts, and seem rather blase in your refusal to acknowledge that what you want to do is to ban such consensual acts. I have not debated you before so I don’t really want to presume too much, but it seems to me that liberty of the individual is not a priority of yours. You are what I would call a benevolent authortarian. The problem is that your approach is in fact the mainstream, the default setting of the current way of thinking.
    It does not work, good sir, it does not work.

    Reply
  24. Johnathan Pearce Avatar
    Johnathan Pearce

    Sorry, I just caught this paragraph, which is extraordinarily wrong, so wrong that it cannot stand unremarked:
    “Who cares what the street price is? Really? Who cares? It’s not germane to this argument.”
    It is germaine, Martin, it is in fact the whole bloody point. If you constrain the supply of X, X goes up, and people who want X will do things to get it, like turn to prostitution, crime, etc. Incentives matter. You seem to be blind to the importance of incentives in human behaviour.
    All in all, Martin, you have done nothing to convince me that banning prostitution or drugs by ever more savage methods will produce the results you aim for.

    Reply
  25. Samizdata.net Avatar
    Samizdata.net

    Thoughts on the Suffolk murders

    The other day I wrote about the charms of Suffolk, that county in East Anglia in which I was brought up. A place famous for gentle, flattish countryside, nice buildings, coastal scenery, fine beer and a once-very-good football team (Ipswich Town FC won…

    Reply
  26. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “Communism was defeated in large part because those parts of the world that practised it were slaughterhouses, full of poverty, misery and death. It was a secular ideology that failed on its own terms”
    Not quite.
    Having 50 American divisions in Germany and the ability to turn Moscow into glass helped. Soviet Communism was not spent out – it was outspent.
    “You seem confident that one can stamp out prostitution, but you seem remarkably coy about spelling out the degree of coercion, of intrusion into people’s freedoms, that would be necessary to achieve that. I suspect, Martin, that you will the ends of a drug-free, prostitute-free, sin-free Britain), but have not exactly spelled out how that desirable state of affairs might be achieved”
    Here goes – criminalise commercial sex. Swamp the red light district with police. Have the newspapers publish the whores’ and punters’ names and addresses. Turn it into a jailable offence – two years for third conviction.
    You are quite wrong to assume I have no, or little, regard for the liberty of the individual; quite the opposite. I rather think an individual’s liberty is enhanced by reducing the risk of them having to sell their bodies to buy smack.
    Such behaviour is undignified; and liberty cannot exist without dignity.
    (I think I’ve just been profound…)
    I take exception to being described as ‘mainstream’; but if labels must be bandied I will settle for ‘right wing’.
    You write,
    “It is germaine, Martin, it is in fact the whole bloody point. If you constrain the supply of X, X goes up, and people who want X will do things to get it, like turn to prostitution, crime, etc. Incentives matter. You seem to be blind to the importance of incentives in human behaviour.”
    Not at all. If people want X when X is prohibited then it means they should not have taken X in the first place- which means that the correct incentive to stop them wanting X is to punish the usage of X very much more harshly than at present.
    We are a nation which has forgotten the concept of the exemplary sentence – a blunt instrument, but sometimes useful for reminding thinkers such as yourself that in the eternal battle between economism and the rule of law, the rule of law must always win.

    Reply
  27. Pete D. Avatar
    Pete D.

    It is apparent that Martin doesn’t know how legal brothels work. Here in the capital of Oz they are legal and the system works very well.
    I can’t go into details as my time is limited, but as accountants my firm has looked after the tax affairs(!) of some brothels.
    Legalising drugs is a whole lot more complicated.

    Reply
  28. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Peter,
    Having made your living supplying professional services to legal brothels in one country (presumably one not possessing the same massive probelm with women being trafficked for the purposes of prostitution as the UK does), you would say that, wouldn’t you?
    Tell us how they work.

    Reply
  29. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    Martin,
    “I rather think an individual’s liberty is enhanced by reducing the risk of them having to sell their bodies to buy smack.”
    Yes, that’s exactly what pro-legalisers think too. The “war on drugs” has done nothing to help these addicts in 20 years. We have spent billions on enforcement, and what has it done? Raised the price, forcing addicts to do more desperate things to pay for their drugs.

    Reply
  30. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tim A.,
    Tough.
    If junkies don’t want to pay prices inflated by the costs of regulating the substances they consume, they shouldn’ have stuck the needle in their arm in the first place.
    I’m all for abolishing duty on tobacco and alcohol – what’s sauce for the goose is smack for the gander.

    Reply
  31. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    Martin,
    “If junkies don’t want to pay prices inflated by the costs of regulating the substances they consume, they shouldn’t have stuck the needle in their arm in the first place.”
    These aren’t “costs of regulating”. They are the cost premium that black market trade always incurs to cover the risk of traders, bribes, enforcement and so forth.
    If you legalised, licensed and regulated the market, there would still be a “cost of regulating”, but in total it would be considerably less than current price (and be more reliable, safer etc.)

    Reply
  32. Pete D. Avatar
    Pete D.

    OK Martin here goes.
    1/ Brothels and their workers are subject to regular health checks.
    2/ Customers are screened for obvious STDs. Condoms are mandatory.
    3/ Brothel owners and sex workers are in “the system”.
    4/ Brothels are only allowed in specialised industrial suburbs. No effect on residential areas and clients have improved privacy.
    5/ Sex workers can be represented by a union.
    6/ “Free lancers” have been reduced to virtually zero.
    I suspect your main objection to prostitution is that unregulated sex is taking place. I would suggest that the biggest problem is all those girls giving it away for free.

    Reply
  33. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tim A,
    Taking your argument at face value, whether extra costs incurred are costs of regulation or cost premia really makes little difference to my point.
    Assuming that the law of supply and demand has not been suspended, cost premia are incidental to the price’s determining factor – availability of the drug.
    Smash poppy production if Afghanistan and the price would go up either way; and surely the best way of avoiding black market cost premia is to avoid entangling oneself in a black market in the first place.
    Why should any government elected for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order and the common peace legalise a socially harmful practice such as heroin addiction solely on the basis of putative cost savings? Why?
    And the bottom line is – why should I be forced to pay for the junk on which someone else has elected to get themself hooked? Not very fair on me, is it?
    Peter,
    1. Covered above
    2. Ditto
    3. So they pay tax. And?
    4. OK, we have plenty of industrial estates. I can really see the punters driving from Glasgow out to Inchinnan in the slashing rain we had last night, but I’ll take your point as far as Australia’s concerned.
    5. They’ll just be about the only ones left – union membership in the UK is on a terminal slide.
    6. So how many investigations have been carried out into organised crime’s ownership of legal brothels?
    I’m sorry, Pete, your answers don’t come close to answering nearly all my questions.

    Reply
  34. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    Martin
    “Taking your argument at face value, whether extra costs incurred are costs of regulation or cost premia really makes little difference to my point.”
    Well, except that the cost of regulation of heroin would be much lower than the impact of the current black market.
    “Assuming that the law of supply and demand has not been suspended, cost premia are incidental to the price’s determining factor – availability of the drug.”
    And supply is reduced/cost increased by customs officers seizing it, and the number of people trading in it are reduced by the risks of supplying it (both governmental and violence from other suppliers). Many farmers won’t grow heroin poppies because they’d rather not risk the penalty.
    “and surely the best way of avoiding black market cost premia is to avoid entangling oneself in a black market in the first place.”
    No. The best way is to get rid of the black market, by legalisation. The idea that you can destroy the narcotics market is laughable. The USA have spent billions fighting the war on drugs and the trade is as large as it was 20 years ago.
    “Why should any government elected for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order and the common peace legalise a socially harmful practice such as heroin addiction solely on the basis of putative cost savings? Why?”
    Why should any government elected for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order and the common people legalise a socially harmful practice such as alcoholism?
    “And the bottom line is – why should I be forced to pay for the junk on which someone else has elected to get themself hooked? Not very fair on me, is it?”
    Alright then… just as long as addicts pay the correct market price. No government intervention in the trade beyond licensing of suppliers and taxing externalities. OK?

    Reply
  35. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “Well, except that the cost of regulation of heroin would be much lower than the impact of the current black market.”
    Assumption. The Taliban might kick us out of Afghanistan and the price would go up again.
    “And supply is reduced/cost increased by customs officers seizing it, and the number of people trading in it are reduced by the risks of supplying it (both governmental and violence from other suppliers). Many farmers won’t grow heroin poppies because they’d rather not risk the penalty.”
    Good.
    1. Hell mend the users.
    2. Grow potatoes instead. We have enough problems in this country without worrying about the poverty of Pathan poppy growers. No.
    “The best way is to get rid of the black market, by legalisation. The idea that you can destroy the narcotics market is laughable. The USA have spent billions fighting the war on drugs and the trade is as large as it was 20 years ago.”
    Tim, the process of legalising or criminalising any activity carries no mystique. Laws are nothing but the expression of prevailing political will at particulalr points in time and space.
    It is a fundamental of legal history that no matter what laws exist regulating whatever activity you like, there will be those who will break them.
    Why is the idea of destroying the narcotics market laughable? Why?
    Because there is no political will to do so.
    The USA’s different from us in that they have two very long land borders – we don’t.
    If our governments were interested in stamping out drug trafficking they’d be able to do so in a month – however, they lack the political will to do so.
    “Why should any government elected for the sole purpose of maintaining law and order and the common people legalise a socially harmful practice such as alcoholism?”
    I’m afraid I’m aware of any statute or precedent that specifically legitimises alcoholism. Do you?
    It might be the case that some heroin addicts are predisposed to heroin addiction in the same way that some alcoholics seem predisposed to alcoholism – the late George Best seems a good case in point.
    Yet how many alcoholics become alcoholics after only five drinks?
    You are certainly comparing two addictive narcotics – but to compare one which is immediately addictive with one to which addcition takkes a longer time to build is disingenuous.
    And the social stigma around alcoholism is still very strong – otherwise we would not have bodies entitled ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’.
    “Alright then… just as long as addicts pay the correct market price. No government intervention in the trade beyond licensing of suppliers and taxing externalities. OK?”
    No. Heroin’s evil shite, and we would all be better off if it had never been invented.

    Reply
  36. nmac Avatar
    nmac

    rather late yes, you lot are off your nut! yes prostitution is sort of legal in Oz. Though not totally systemised as one of you would like to think.(accountant.). In the great state of QLD. You can find street walkers in the middle of cities, At toll ways, and clubs and pubs. Yes it has been LEGALISED, Though i would wager that lots of eswtablishmants are run/owned by a few of those from the darker side of life or shadys’ who got the heads up from their political friends at the time of processing the laws.
    prostitution IS the OLDEST known proffession yeah? Let it be and it will serve it’s purpose and continue for years to come. Press hard at outlawing and you end up with more of the not so well offs’ in jails and blocking up courts.
    Those of you with drug habits, Serves you bloody well right. Everyone knows what it is they wish to play with. I CHOOSE not to mess with it my self and therefore take umbrage at the thought of having to help pay for it!!
    I’m not a pyschiatrist(thank the lord) but i would tend to lay my money on the odds that ride with prostitutes getting hooked on smack, not for a good time, rather, to help time pass and help the mind forget?
    Still, I dont use their services nor have i held onto their arms and shunted crap in their viens. I hate the term “social problem” being used to describe this habit.
    If one is serious about getting rid of this problem i suggest taking the same kind of approach as Singapore.Wack the dealers, no ifs or buts and belt the dogooders’/civil libers who want to stand up and make them into martyrs. The more the population accepts the way the dealers/pushers are treated in the courts, the harder it gets to stop the rot!
    We spend too much time effort and public resources on these people as it is and now we have JERKS using blog sites to push for free hits??. Yeah, I’ll go for that, if its’ a HOT SHOT!! Good Day.

    Reply
  37. nmac Avatar
    nmac

    Sorry, one more thing for you all to mull over.Britains’ Guvna,U.S.A.’s Guvna and last but not least, Ozs’ little guvna, Recentlty decide to have themselves a little ol war in the gulf region of Desert land, y’all remember? Well now, how many of you think the reasoning for this little ol game was Heroin?. Do that math and get off the glass smooth shite shoveled down the throats of the masses by the (guvs’mates) Media, look at the Grand achievments of the three. With Iraq is deep water ports. (yes yes, and oil). It also gives the passage to Afgahnistan.With the Taliban outa the way, The once deposed war lords back in power again, the OPIUM feilds have once again boomed!. Now tell me gents of the “give to the masses brigrade”, where do you think all this extra smacko is heaading? Hey you lot are doing great, give yourselves a star and a pat on the back.
    Now if only you all can get your heads around the “why is it so”. Who lets it in your country and how? Sure there is the illeagle element involved in it(crims etc.) but was there a great shortage in the world that our own Guvs’ Needed to free up production to help out all those poor poor addicts and prostitutes?, or did they and their cronnies need some extra cash for themselves and the next campain?
    May i suggest that rather than worry about stamping out prostitution(impossible), get into pushing the capital punishment for dealing in the heroin/death industry.
    Oh by the way, you imply prostitutes are selling themselves for their next hit? Are you aware that not all of them are addicts? Some are actually in the trade(?) because they like the work, others because they like the income it provides. Again, if you want to kill out the organised crime side of things then the MAN needs to send ther right kind of message. Jails that are so close to resort standards is no deterrent, if the money is still coming in. To Stamp out that kind of element needs a heavy hand, all else is a joke, a slap in the face of the law abiding people who have to pay for their internment. You can re-educate these people but dont expect them to change their ways because the money from the illeagle side is far greater than that achievable on the law abiding side, not to mention the high from walking on the edge.
    Now, where in the hell did religion come from? What did Islam have to do with this typersation? and communism? MAD I TELL YOU, YOUR ALL MAD.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading