Victimless Crimes

Why?

There should be no victimless crimes. If there's no victim, there's no harm to society, so why are the following things illegal?

Prostitution

Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? The logic of this completely escapes me.

Drug Use

Aside from the blatant inconsistency that alcohol and tobacco are legal while marijuana is not, what business of the government's is it what I ingest into my body? Apparently there's no problem if I choose to cheeseburger myself to death, but I'm a dangerous criminal if I choose to smoke a joint in my own home. What about driving while under the influence of drugs? That's another matter, and the penalties for that should be strengthened. What of the secondary crime due to drug addiction? Again, that's another matter, and those addicts who commit it should pay the price. But drug use is not -- despite the constantly escalating rhetoric of the War On Drugs -- equivalent to drug abuse, any more than drinking alcohol makes you an alcoholic. Ironically, it's only tobacco that seems to be 100% addictive.

Helmet Laws

Motorcycle drivers here in California are legally required to wear a helmet. Of course, it's a good idea to wear a helmet, and you wouldn't catch me without one, but if you really want to prevent motorcycle injuries you'll need to outlaw motorcycles. Of course, one can make a case that society is the victim if motorcycle drivers with insufficient medical insurance sustain disproportionately high expensive head injuries, but this can be remedied by requiring helmetless motorcycle drivers to have a higher level of insurance. Other than that, it's not my concern whether you risk your life when you ride your motorcycle, any more than it's my concern when you risk your life rock climbing, or swimming in the ocean, or bungee jumping, or touring Death Valley in mechanically questionable cars.

Crossing the train tracks

As I write this, this morning I got a ticket for "trespassing on railroad property", also known as "taking a shortcut across the tracks instead of going down to the underpass tunnel". The Officer Friendly who cited me gave me a stern lecture about the number (fourteen) of local railroad track deaths last year. I'm sorry, but with all due respect to the dead, they were idiots. Trains are big and loud, and if you don't see one coming then perhaps the gene pool is better off without you. We take chances every day: driving, crossing the street, walking in parking lots, riding bicycles, and even eating all require perception and judgement to perform safely. I chose to take an intelligent gamble that my eyesight and hearing, combined with the approximately three miles of visibility each way, would be sufficient to perceive any oncoming danger on the train tracks, but apparently I cannot be trusted with such a momentous decision. Thank you ever so much.
Postscript:
The proposed fine for first-time jaywalking across the railroad tracks is $670.00. The District Attorney considers these tickets a waste of his valuable time (and rightly so, IMHO) and proposed a token fine of $75.00 (subsequently raised by the judge to $100.00, apparently to make sure I'm properly penitent). So now, in addition to my many other talents and accomplishments, I can proudly add to my resume: Successfully plea-bargained with the District Attorney. My family is so proud...

My point (and rumor has it that I do have one) is that if you've decided that the government has an obligation to protect you from yourself, then that's a valid decision. But be prepared to give up cheeseburgers (oy, the cholesterol!), beer and wine (both are known gateway drugs to alcoholism), television (it rots the mind, you know), showering without a lifeguard (guess where most household accidents occur?), cooking your own food (guess the second most likely place for household accidents?), any and all firearms (I don't need to spell this one out, do I?), rock concerts, and sex.

Are we children who need to be protected from our own stupidity, or are we adults who can take responsibility for our own actions? I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority here...

The bottom line:

The government has neither the duty nor the right to protect me from harming or endangering myself. Their duty is to protect me from you, and you from me. Any more than that is the beginning of a police state.

Wanna tell me why I'm a complete moron?  Get in line. There are approximately...[three]...[hundred]...[fourteen]...people ahead of you. Be prepared to wait a while -- the first one in line is my wife.

Wanna tell me why I'm wrong about one or more of these items?  I'd be glad to hear it.