Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 2, 1994 TAG: 9401050176
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
It is too long. Its thesis is ineptly argued. The writing is grating - especially the repeated interruptions by what the author obviously, yet mistakenly, believes are witty asides.
Its opening chapter is so badly executed I was determined to write a column blasting the thing without even bothering with the rest of it.
But I forced myself to read ``Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.'' And what I found is that Peter McWilliams is basically right in his argument that what he defines as consensual crimes really shouldn't be crimes at all.
McWilliams - busted on a minor drug charge in his youth that he apparently never got over - asserts that ``if it doesn't harm the person or property of another, it shouldn't be illegal.''
It's not a new idea, despite the fact that some people reacted as if Elders' suggestion that maybe we should study decriminalizing some drug use was the first of its kind.
McWilliams' book - ``Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do'' - may not be the first but - at 800 pages - is probably the longest defense of the notion in print. It is an incredibly elaborate treatise, the bulk of which is aimed at defusing potential Christian arguments against the idea with an extensive segment on biblical notions of right and wrong.
I was surprised to discover it, but McWilliams has a good understanding of conventional, orthodox Christianity. He doesn't try to deny it or defend it, but challenges others to read the book their beliefs are based on - the Bible.
He has a whole chapter - way more than is necessary - of one-liner out-of-context biblical quotes to try to bolster his point. Generally, however, he exhibits a solid understanding of the teachings of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
And he avoids the key problem one fully expects in such a work. While he may believe there are no absolutes, he doesn't argue about that. What he argues is that there are some things that huge segments of a free society may agree are wrong, but should not be illegal.
The result of legalizing these activities is twofold. First, it would get government out of baby-sitting adults who shouldn't have to have Big Brother protecting them from themselves. Second, it would free up a major public investment of time, money and people in the criminal justice system.
Some examples:
Prostitution: Assuming the participants are not coerced (which would be against the law), sexual relations between two adults for money shouldn't be illegal.
McWilliams argues that if prostitution were legal, it could be taxed, regulated, medically supervised. Legality would remove a certain criminal element from its practice. Police would stop wasting time trying to prevent consenting adults from engaging in an activity that has thrived - despite laws against it - since the dawn of history.
Should religious groups opposing the practice stop preaching against it? Certainly not.
Adultery may be condemned from many a pulpit, but it is now not illegal in most states.
Similarly, even in states that continue to have laws prohibiting homosexual behavior, those are rarely enforced. Law-enforcement officials and the public no longer condone the prosecution of that behavior, even if they think it is morally wrong. Enforcement is, at the very least, ineffective and a waste of resources.
Drug use and abuse: It's pretty easy to argue that some drugs just should not be legal, based on their potential for harm or their similarity to legal substances.
Relatively few people now believe marijuana is a devil drug that leads its users down the path to more and more destructive substances. Many studies suggest it is probably less harmful than alcohol, certainly less addictive than cigarettes.
If it were legal, it could be taxed - exorbitantly, as cigarettes and alcohol should be - and users would be sure of the potency and toxicity of its ingredients.
But what about other, more potent chemicals? Cocaine, heroin, LSD? McWilliams argues they should be legal, too, and that society should rely on sound education about the potential hazards to limit their use.
Other poisons - to kill rats or cool automobile engines, for example - are commonly available and could be ``abused'' by somebody stupid enough to do that. They are not illegal, however.
I'm not sold on that argument, but it's worth considering.
Where I think McWilliams really goes wrong is on arguments on what are usually considered more minor matters - seat-belt and motorcycle-helmet laws.
In those cases he misses the point that when others don't use those safety devices I end up paying more for automobile and health insurance. Other people's injuries do harm me in those cases, because ultimately paying for them falls at least partially in my lap.
Though he's willing to tackle many controversial subjects, McWilliams avoids the big one - abortion. It's probably a good thing since its implications strain his ``don't harm another'' rule. But since he didn't get into that, I won't here either.
McWilliams' approach doesn't work at all, of course, for people who essentially believe government should be theocratic - that is, that religious law should be civil law.
Those people shouldn't even be living in the United States, a civil state that rejects the principles of theocracy in favor of religious freedom. They should, instead, seek out some uninhabited spot and found a new society there.
But even those of us who don't want a new form of government can be uncomfortable with McWilliams' propositions. We worry about anarchy, and many of us would contend that we do have some obligation to protect the ignorant or stupid from hurting themselves.
We all know we can't protect everybody, though. And this new year would be a good time to take a look at the possibilities of reforming laws that regulate behavior that ``ain't nobody's business.''
by CNB