Harm minimisation.
To outlaw an activity which is inevitable merely ensures that it is undertaken without effective harm minimisation.
The activities which are most often outlawed are risky ones which include drug use, abortion, base jumping, and some forms of sex.
To take abortion as a controversial example, no matter how anti-abortion a person is, if they think that draconian legislation and enforcement will make it go away, they have the whole of recorded history to defy. Abortions are going to be sought and procured. Illegality just makes it vastly more hazardous.
As these behaviours are generally risky only to the participants, the main thrust of the argument against them is that they are harmful to those who engage in them. By outlawing them, however, the harm to participants is increased, and harm is spread to other members of the community as well.
I look at the measures that are taken against such frowned-upon activities and I notice that they don't seem to be addressing the practical needs of the people who engage in risky behaviour or the people who are impacted by it. So I wonder what the intention is. And whose it is.
If the intention which is being fulfilled is that of an elected official trying to maintain a comforting world-view for their more vociferous constituents by maintaining a naff middle class white bread Utopian illusion that those activities don't exist (with a bonus "Tough on crime" image-boost), that makes sense. And yet, if I were to guess at the intention of the vast majority of the constituents, I'd imagine that they would prefer that the 'problem' be addressed in ways that reduce harm all around.
To establish, for example, a safe injecting facility in an area which has for generations been littered with drug taking implements and collapsed drug users makes sense from a harm minimisation perspective, so why does it not happen?
The inclination to outlaw activities rather than take measures to minimise harm seems to come from a vocal minority whose outrage and certitude pressures others to voice agreement with their desire to eliminate activities they see as being bad, and to punish those who continue to engage in those activities without mercy.
I think that the people who constitute this loud, rigid, prohibitionist mind-set have a disproportionate level of influence over popular opinion, especially in democracies where the media is more populist than rigorous. It's pretty simple to demonstrate that prohibition is not effective in minimising harm but, for some reason, the idea appears to appeal to enough of the population to influence political decision making. Not enough to bring about the impossible; the elimination of the behaviours, but enough to prevent effective harm minimisation.
This entry crossposted from http://tangent-woman.dreamwidth.org/550574.html with
comments. Please comment there if you feel inclined. You too can have a Dreamwidth blog. Ask me how!
The activities which are most often outlawed are risky ones which include drug use, abortion, base jumping, and some forms of sex.
To take abortion as a controversial example, no matter how anti-abortion a person is, if they think that draconian legislation and enforcement will make it go away, they have the whole of recorded history to defy. Abortions are going to be sought and procured. Illegality just makes it vastly more hazardous.
As these behaviours are generally risky only to the participants, the main thrust of the argument against them is that they are harmful to those who engage in them. By outlawing them, however, the harm to participants is increased, and harm is spread to other members of the community as well.
I look at the measures that are taken against such frowned-upon activities and I notice that they don't seem to be addressing the practical needs of the people who engage in risky behaviour or the people who are impacted by it. So I wonder what the intention is. And whose it is.
If the intention which is being fulfilled is that of an elected official trying to maintain a comforting world-view for their more vociferous constituents by maintaining a naff middle class white bread Utopian illusion that those activities don't exist (with a bonus "Tough on crime" image-boost), that makes sense. And yet, if I were to guess at the intention of the vast majority of the constituents, I'd imagine that they would prefer that the 'problem' be addressed in ways that reduce harm all around.
To establish, for example, a safe injecting facility in an area which has for generations been littered with drug taking implements and collapsed drug users makes sense from a harm minimisation perspective, so why does it not happen?
The inclination to outlaw activities rather than take measures to minimise harm seems to come from a vocal minority whose outrage and certitude pressures others to voice agreement with their desire to eliminate activities they see as being bad, and to punish those who continue to engage in those activities without mercy.
I think that the people who constitute this loud, rigid, prohibitionist mind-set have a disproportionate level of influence over popular opinion, especially in democracies where the media is more populist than rigorous. It's pretty simple to demonstrate that prohibition is not effective in minimising harm but, for some reason, the idea appears to appeal to enough of the population to influence political decision making. Not enough to bring about the impossible; the elimination of the behaviours, but enough to prevent effective harm minimisation.
This entry crossposted from http://tangent-woman.dreamwidth.org/550574.html with
comments. Please comment there if you feel inclined. You too can have a Dreamwidth blog. Ask me how!