In the late 1970s, Charles E. Silberman wrote in Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice concerning "the continuing struggle for social and political ascendancy among ethnic, religious, and racial groups" in the context of vice crimes. Aside from a silly footnote trying to suggest "victimless crimes" arguably have a victim,* it was an interesting aside. For instance, many "crimes" or would be crimes clearly arise from disputed moral beliefs that amount to arbitrary threats to liberty. They also tend to targert certain racial, sexual, or whatever groups. Thus, a clear equal protection problem arises as well, no less troublesome for the fact that the disputes are so divisive and personal.
This came to mind respecting to examples of the mommy state in action. First, arbitrary targeting of medicinal marijuana:
The new charges against Mr. Rosenthal are similar to those in a 2002 federal indictment. At the time, Mr. Rosenthal worked for the City of Oakland and was sanctioned under city and state laws to grow marijuana plants and sell them to dispensaries. He was convicted by a jury, but a federal appeals court overturned the decision, citing juror misconduct. He was granted a new trial, and prosecutors were moving forward, but the new federal indictment supersedes the earlier one. ... It accuses Mr. Rosenthal, 61, of 14 felony charges that include cultivating marijuana plants; laundering $1,850, which the government says he got from selling the plants to medical dispensaries; and tax evasion. His tax returns, prosecutors said, omitted income from the sale of the plants.
Money laundering of $1,850? Talk about a small wash cycle! Clearly, a case of overcharging to make sure that troublesome Ed stops being such a menace to the home of the soon to be eliminated As. Generally, many don't think too much about pot, considering it not really worth their time. Meanwhile, loads of people continue to suffer prosecution and jail time, even if they are just using it to salve medical problems that repeatedly have been shown to be aided by such use. Your tax dollars at work.
Talking about money, when I wrote my opus, gambling came up in my Ninth Amendment section. My argument was that a generalized view of liberty, namely the basic rights we have that are not expressly found in the Constitution, would probably in many people's minds include gambling. It touches upon many basic freedoms, even if it is not something one would think the courts would directly (indirectly, probably in many ways, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment securities that make it easier to gamble illegally) secure. Still, few would want to you know ban the practice, even if technically such things as Odd Couple like poker games are illegal in various cases.
Well, not everyone. Thus, we have one of those now sadly fairly typical late in the day insertions to "no touch" legislation, here a port security bill, that aims to "prohibit[s] gamblers [i.e., adults] from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to settle their online wagers." This sort of thing annoys conservative libertarians as much as Barney Frank liberals. "The World Trade Organization even has a stake in the game. The organization has ruled that the United States violates trade treaties by outlawing offshore online gambling while tolerating some forms of U.S.-based online gambling, citing the horse-racing ambiguity."
It is unclear how workable such a law would be, but as the Glenn Greenwald link notes, half the battle is the amount of time and effort (think of it as a liberty tax) such regulation would cause lawful businesses. Likewise, it underlines the mentality of the mommy and daddy government we have now, down to the "it's right because we say so" and "how dare you talk back to us" mentality. And, as with the typical parent, there is some hypocrisy. Thus, Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition support of Jack Abramoff's Indian gambling ring. But, hey, it was subcontracted! Wah!
If you are ahead 0-2 with two outs, don't try the fastball when he had no success against the breaking stuff. Come on!
---
* The examples left something to be desired. Bribery of public officials? This supplies special favors to certain people, depriving the average voter equal time. Sale of stolen property or unregulated firearms? Uh, this furthers theft and the dangers regulation is meant to handle. IOW, there clearly is a "victim" here, if only a bit less direct. But, directly arising from certain wrongs. Prostitution and the like might have victims, but they do not so directly arise from clear non-consensual behaviors.