Miami, 2008

with inmates whose “crimes” have hurt no one and who are not in the least dangerous people.  Why is anyone incarcerated for smoking or growing marijuana in his  home?  Or for engaging in consensual commercial sex (or, for that matter, private unconventional sex)?   Or for playing poker?  Legislators in ostensibly free societies have always felt a need to impose their personal morality on those who may hold different values (while hypocritically condemning the intolerance of foreign totalitarian or religious rulers).    

The New York Times recently called editorially for repealing the U.S. federal ban on marijuana.   It pointed out that the FBI had arrested 658,000 people for marijuana use in 2012, even while marijuana is demonstrably less “dangerous” than alcohol.  It also noted the high social costs of enforcing pot prohibition – apparently $3.6 billion per year (an interesting statistic even if  irrelevant to the argument against intolerance).  This was a bold move by the Times and should be applauded.

A couple weeks later, The Economist, in a loud, in-your-face cover story, urged governments to stop trying to ban prostitution.  It argued that the flourishing of personal call-girl and swinger websites (the magazine even named a few) exposes the myth that all prostitutes are victims. Because of today’s technology, “prostitutes can market themselves and build their brands,” it approvingly noted.  As for pimps and other aggressors, justifiable laws against kidnaping, slavery and assault ought to be sufficient.  

It is good to see these two high-profile publications join this libertarian bandwagon.  Times may be a-changin’. 

Cloudcroft, New Mexico, 2011

Somnathpur, India, 2011

Abu Dhabi, 2009

San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2008

Paris, 2013