that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)
That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.
I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime).
In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.
I believe that you cannot criminalize half of a transaction. Further, you cannot criminalize any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction.
If it is okay to use a drug, it is okay to buy it. If it is okay to buy it, it is okay to sell it. If it is okay to sell it, it is okay to produce it. If it is okay to produce it, it is okay to acquire the raw materials and precursors (i.e. grow cannabis, grow mycelium, grow ergot, buy pseudoephedrine).
If there is a possible malicious use or purpose, you can only criminalize that chain as far back as the last link in an innocent use or purpose. If you criminalize methamphetamine, you cannot also criminalize pseudoephedrine, because it is still a decongestant cold remedy, which is an innocent purpose.
In my view, you cannot separate links from the web of commerce by outlawing an intermediate activity and pretend that the orphaned innocent activities are not affected by it.
I think those laws previously mentioned are thus aimed more at influencing policing activity. Left to their own devices, a cop would prefer to arrest a prostitute than 10 johns, and would prefer to arrest a pimp than 10 prostitutes, and would prefer to arrest an organized crime captain than 10 pimps, and would prefer to arrest a kingpin than 10 captains. Interrupting that walk to the root of the crime tree at the prostitute level forces them to fight the crime where it occurs rather than seize the money.
Sure you can. Just say it's not illegal to use drugs but it's illegal to sell them. Easy as that. You're outlawing every activity that happens except the actions of the victim.
Addiction is considered a mental illness by the US government. If we outlaw consumption of drugs by an addict, we're throwing people in jail for having a mental illness. It doesn't matter where they got the drugs from, they're the victim. However, selling drugs is not an addiction. Growing drugs is not an addiction. They're crimes, because you're victimizing someone with a mental illness.
You're not criminalizing any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction because in this situation there is no legal transaction that lets you purchase illegal drugs.
The one having to buy drugs is the victim while the ones selling it is the criminal, but the one having to sell sex is the victim while the one buying it is the criminal? As long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, this makes no sense.
The problem is we're comparing a hypothetical situation to a real, different situation in a different country with different laws. In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution. However, if buying sex is illegal and selling women for sex is illegal but being a prostitute is not illegal, then we're effectively saying the woman is the victim of the transaction. There is no way it could be consensual if it's illegal on one side but not the other. The reason it would be legal to sell yourself for sex but not legal to purchase is because the women were often being coerced or otherwise forced into prostitution. These laws automatically assume the woman is the victim and automatically assume the sex is non-consensual even if both parties agree to it. Just like how a minor cannot consent even if they say yes, with these kinds of laws a prostitute cannot consent even if they say yes.
If both buying and selling sex are legal, then it's a different story. But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim. And if a drug dealer is offering something an addict cannot prevent themselves from buying due to their mental illness, the dealer is the criminal and the buyer is the victim.
Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes. If a carjacker puts a gun to your head and tells you to run a red light, you won't get a ticket. And if you're addicted to heroin, you don't really have a choice if you want to buy heroin or not. But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you. That's why they're the criminal.
>In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution.
I have long since rejected the notion of the law having any say in what is or isn't consensual. If the law says that pi is 3 or that climate change isn't happening, would we give any weight to it? No, and not because the law happens to be wrong in this case, but because any educated person would reject what the law has to say concerning the reality of the situation. (Not to say the law can be ignored if one is looking to stay out of jail, but thankfully online arguments about reality aren't likely to get one jailed.)
>But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim.
You define the victim based on what the law says? Once again, I reject the notion that what the law says has any bearing on reality.
>Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes.
If every prostitute can be considered forced, then so can every john. A john would only be seeing prostitute because a more socially acceptable hookup is not available, and in such they are forced into it in much the same way that a prostitute is forced into it because a more socially acceptable job is not available (BTW, I'm being sarcastic because I reject that whole argument).
>But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you.
When you are in a gang and are told to go seel some crack, you don't tell the leader no if you favor your health and wellbeing.
In the case of a consenting prostitute, sex is what is being sold. In the case where they aren't consenting, you are dealing with a human trafficker selling (renting) a human. But as long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, sex is the item being sold, not the person.
I wonder if that would actually work.