John Singleton, The Australian, March 16, 1977, p. 8, in the “Forum” box.

The latest thing to have a seminar about is victimless crime.

In fact, if you get two or three beards and their beasts gathered together it is now even more likely that victimless crime is the subject, rather than ecology, natural childbirth or literary grants.

And, as the great minds sip on nuts and honey, it is almost inevitable that the principle will be overlooked because of something of the moment. For instance everyone will agree that marijuana should be legalised. Grog should stay legal. So should fags.

But heroin should still be illegal. And advertising of cigarettes should still be banned from TV.

Unfortunately, there is no more principle in their argument than there is in those with whom they argue.

First, a crime is an action that violates the rights of someone else.

So, if you stick a knife through someone’s throat, or knock off the takings of the Salvation Army lady, or the lady herself, or you tell someone that a swamp is the Riviera rediscovered and rip money off them, you have committed a real crime. Go directly to jail.

But if you do anything that has no effect on anyone except you and other people who share your enjoyment in what you do, then how can there be a crime?

If you’re a boy who prefers others boys that is your business. Ditto girls. I may think you don’t know what you’re missing out on but you may say that equally of me.

If you want to do your dough at the horses or roulette or flies on the wall, how can it be a crime if you do it privately?

If you want to sell your body and someone wants to pay for it, I wish you well and I wish him luck. Or vice versa.

And if you want to kill yourself with booze, or other less-known drugs, that is your business, not mine.

Until you do something, under the influence of those drugs, that affects someone else’s rights.

Once the principle of what is and what is not a crime is understood, then we come to recognise another huge range of human activity which is equally regulated by law, equally unnecessary.

For example, eg, what hours shops can open; minimum wage legislation; loadings; annual holiday and sickness benefits; compulsory unionism, schooling.

Plus — for any businessman who feels left out — just about every form of economic regulation including tariffs, statistic requirements and trade restrictions so perfectly exampled by the government monopolies like the egg, wheat, milk and wool-boards.

All of these activities are governed by laws, and when you break one of those government-made laws you are said to have committed a crime.

But, if you accept the previous logical explanation of a crime, that would be impossible.

Such legislation exists only and was created by governments only to win or secure the votes of sectional interests.

  1. Voters who want to enforce their taste — good or bad — on others; such as the Festival of Light. All churches. All senile-decay organisations.
  2. Voters who want to exploit the general public — unethical, money-grabbing or immoral businessmen who want the special privilege of tariffs, licences and economic regulation in general.
  3. The politicians’ supporters within the Government — who seek greater power for themselves through any and all regulations which subjugate the public to its government.

Therefore, while we have governments like Dunstan’s in South Australia and now Wran’s in New South Wales, actually and actively moving to “legalise some victimless crimes,” it seems as good a chance as any — like a million to one — for them to consider “legalising” all such victimless activities.

Surely the same principle applies.

Our police last year had to waste their time making over four million arrests of people who were harming no one but themselves.

And, while the laws force the police to do this, it is natural that real crime continues to rise and real prosecutions continue to drop.

And no matter what argument is put up against the principle of victimless crimes, the fact is that while, say, drug taking is a considered crime, then it will create real crime.

Price will rise with scarcity and danger which creates rackets, bribery and further crime by addicts to pay for their addiction.

The fact is that there is no difference in principle between the decriminalisation of homosexuals, prostitution or marijuana and the decriminalisation of those who take other drugs or who break other immoral laws of business privilege such as licences, exemptions, quotas, tariffs and board regulations.

But, as it stands, all that is really happening in the whole victimless crime furore is that a couple of laws, as they stand, are unpopular.

So it is in the politicians’ interest to remove them.

Just as it was in some other politician’s interest, at some other time, to put the laws there in the first place.

Nothing has really changed; especially the principle involved, which remains zero.

(Mr Singleton is managing director of a national advertising agency.)