Sex is the gateway to life. – Frank Harris
It’s easy to tell when a lawhead can see no valid reason for a law restricting some consensual activity: he declares that it tends to lead to some other activity which is unambiguously bad. For those who haven’t encountered the word in my writings before, “lawhead” is my term for those strange (but alas, all too common) individuals who believe that legal declarations have existence in objective fact; to a lawhead someone 17 years and 364 days old is a bona fide child, just as much as a toddler is, because the law declares it so. And if a law declares something wrong it MUST be wrong for some reason, even if the lawhead cannot himself discern that reason. For example, lawheads counter scientific and anecdotal evidence that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol by declaring it a “gateway drug” which inevitably leads to more serious, harmful drugs like heroin. The lawhead cannot accept that marijuana prohibition could possibly be wrong, so he must invent a lie to justify that prohibition: “It may be that marijuana is harmless,” he thinks, “but since it leads to things that aren’t the State is justified in banning it.”
The “gateway” argument is also commonly used to justify the prohibition of prostitution, as in this February 23rd article from WMC-TV in Southaven, Mississippi (thanks, Joyce!):
An undercover prostitution sting operation in Southaven, Mississippi busted five suspected prostitutes and six men. Police Chief Tom Long hopes to send the message that Southaven will not tolerate prostitution. “We are going to make these arrests,” said Long. “We’re not going to write them a citation and cut them loose. We’re going to arrest them, book them, and process them and put them through our court.”
Over the weekend undercover police officers used classified ads posted on backpage.com to invite suspected prostitutes and customers into Southaven…Long said the prostitution sting is an effort to scare the illegal activity out of Southaven. “We have no street walking [sic] section,” said Long. “We don’t have people walking up and down the streets and its [sic] never been a problem for us.”
And Long hopes to keep it that way. “Anywhere you have prostitution you have drugs, you have theft, you have other crimes constantly being committed,” said Long. A proactive approach, according to the chief, keeps the trouble elsewhere…
It should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that this is a bogus argument; how could escorts coming into town for one hour and then leaving again somehow magically lead to drug dealing and theft? Perhaps he believes that those invisible “sex rays” which destroy the “innocence” of children have a similar effect on adults? Is Chief Long trying to convince people that the “sex rays” from a hooker’s body radiate out through the windows of her car, causing moral degeneracy in everyone they strike? Or maybe he believes that we “traffick” in drug dealers and thieves and then leave them behind when we go like irresponsible urbanites abandoning unwanted dogs in rural areas? And then there’s the obvious contradiction inherent in his talk about streetwalkers even though his sting was directed toward escorts, and the fact that if he actually believes any of the filth he’s spouting then he is guilty of inviting crime into Southaven himself by luring hookers from outside to enter the city!
However, I don’t believe for one second that Chief Long, or the majority of the thousands of other cops who mouth this same nonsense all over the United States on a daily basis, actually believe a word of it deep down. Those promoting these ridiculous arguments are either lawheads themselves or they’re trying to justify their tyranny to lawheads. Because it’s pretty obvious to sensible people (i.e. those whose brains haven’t rotted from long immersion in fundamentalism or neofeminism) that prostitution is a victimless crime, a justification is needed for the laws prohibiting it or the lawhead’s entire world view is in jeopardy; so, otherwise-harmless prostitution is painted as the “gateway” to theft and other real crimes, thus inventing a reason for prohibiting it and circumventing the obvious fact that such laws are an egregious violation of women’s rights.
The “prostitution attracts crime” myth is a pretty old one; nowadays it’s largely been replaced outside of the minds of small-town cops by the “all prostitution is coerced” mythology and by fanciful claims that our private activities somehow magically “demean” all other women even if they don’t know we exist. But in the final analysis, those aren’t very different from it, are they? Both of those beliefs (and others like them) really proceed from the same need to recast the innocuous as harmful, not for itself but for its fancied consequences.
That reminds me of the lunacy MADD is now trying to push through Congress, Maggie. Not content to shred portions of the Constitution in what is a noble quest to stop drunk driving, they’ve decided to target use of alcohol by individuals in the privacy of their own homes and are now trying to get Congress to pass a bill requiring installation of ignition interlock devices on all new cars. All of this makes perfect sense if one assumes drinking at home will inevitably lead to drunk driving and the chaos of having every vehicle on the road periodically shut down so the driver is forced to restart it by blowing into a tube equates with trying to prevent deaths and fatalities caused by drunk driving. The idiocy of attempted imposition of certain people’s own values on everyone else through the force of law is an ever-growing cottage industry in our current society sadly. 🙁
They have no “problem”, so they go online to invite them in???? That is nuts!
You write so very well Maggie and I think there is a place to post on that article. You could post your response, the public would see it and say…(This Gal Is right!), Then put a link to this blog.
As I have said before I worked full time 8 years and NEVER used illegal drugs. I never allowed them in my location either. The Cops are actually creating a CRIME. The guy said “We have no street walking”, so I guess now they will have to put female cops on the street to try and entrap the men!!!
I usually do comment on stories where I can sign in from Google or WordPress, but not when they require a lot of information. However, I was glad to see all three local commenters criticizing the police for the actions! 🙂
Some people don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. So when they look at things like what neighborhoods have both prostitution “problems” and drug dealer “problems”, and see a correlation, they assume that causation is present. The same is the case with marijuana and heroin. They see that many people who use heroin used marijuana first, and they assume causation. While causation REQUIRES correlation, correlation does not imply causation.
I’ll illustrate the falsity of the argument with caffeine. Nearly every person in this country is currently using, or has used in the past, caffeine. So ANY behavior can correlate with caffeine. Used illegal drugs? Hired a prostitute? Burglarized a home? Dropped out of college? Wrecked a car? Got pregnant? Ah, but they used caffeine first, so obviously caffeine causes illegal drug use, hiring of prostitutes, burglary, college career terminations, auto accidents, and pregnancy! We have to ban it! And of course, supporters of caffeine can use a similar argument using “good” behavioral examples to support making caffeine intake mandatory (look at all the life-saving medical advances made by people who used caffeine!).
These are example of the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (with this, therefore because of this). See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html
In the case of prostitutes being in areas with other crimes, the actual cause of their colocation may be something like lack of enforcement efforts in that location. The idea that, as Maggie puts it, prostitutes somehow bring in and abandon drug dealers in their chosen “marketing locations” is absurd (what would they do this for? To offer a 2-for-1 special – free sex with every hit of heroin?). So some moron lacking in training in logic saw a correlation and assumed the wrong causation, and then took the wrong steps to prevent something that wasn’t happening (as Maggie said, if he thought having prostitutes in an area was what prompted drug dealers to enter that area, why would he do anything to encourage prostitutes to come into town?). Apparently there isn’t enough actual crime to keep his police force busy, so he had to import some.
The marijuana being a gateway drug argument uses the same fallacy as the above caffeine one.
The one conclusion that should be drawn from this is that Chief Long has not had training in logic – or has forgotten any such training he received. Alas, too few people have had training in logic, so Chief Long doubtless has convinced many people that importing prostitutes for arrest will be effective in preventing drug dealers from plying their trade in his town.
Thanks for the great example, MPH! I would say that the law and police inaction combine to produce the apparent “association” of streetwalking with crime. Criminalization forces streetwalkers to ply their trade where cops can’t see them, and police inactivity creates zones where police presence is weak and therefore draws anyone who wishes to avoid the police. Such zones draw both real criminals and those criminalized by vice laws, because both will be persecuted equally by the police if caught.
I have often said that I think logic and critical thinking should be required classes in high school, but that will never happen because public schools are designed to discourage critical thinking, not encourage it. Thinking is for the future leaders in private schools, not the future burger-flippers, street cleaners and clerks in public schools. 🙁
You’ve got the education system nailed. When the industrialists like Rockefeller and Carnegie were looking for a school system to use as a model for the USA when they were lobbying for a public school system, they chose the Prussian system. The Prussians schools were designed to produce happy little serfs who would do what they were told.
Back to the original topic, at least Chief Long’s department was reasonably well trained. I recall back in the 1980’s in Ft. Wayne, IN, the local vice squad had to be told by the chief that they didn’t actually have to have sex with a prostitute to arrest her for it; the agreement of sex for money and the exchange of money was sufficient.
Talk about mean: now that you’ve provided the services that I paid for, I’m taking back my money and arresting you for providing the service. And of course, I am not naive enough to believe that the vice squad DIDN’T know this before hand, they just thought they could get away with it (I wonder how long they had been getting away with it?), and score some free sex. Those are the kind of police that DESERVE the moniker “pigs”.
American public schools were designed to teach children to respect authority, line up for bells and obey arbitrary rules, and to teach them enough English to read basic instructions and enough math to do basic clerical work. And now that most instructions are verbal and most math done by computer, those portions of the curriculum have been replaced with political indoctrination.
As for the cops you’re talking about, there’s a name for taking sex without obtaining valid consent.
Why do you think that the English government has such hostility towards Summerhill School?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School
I’d love to see Summerhills blossom across the US, supported by government, business, and popular demand, but the odds are higher that I’ll win the lottery… twice.
The two teens in diapers with the pacifiers? Cute, though I personally don’t go for diapers. I’ve got a binky of my own, though. It lights up. 🙂
It’s willful denial to say that marijuana use doesn’t lead to using “harder” drugs in ALL cases. 3 examples of where it did (famous people): Robert Downey, Jr., Karla Tucker and McKenzie Phillips. There’s at least a few others besides these (famous people also). When I started drinking, it was beer and wine coolers. At the end it was vodka with very little mixer in it. I know 1st hand how this CAN happen. To be honest, I get tired of the argument that marijuana is an “innocent” drug that never leads to using others. My life degenerated greatly when I was drinking in at least a few ways and I saw this with others also. Something I wish would be mentioned more with marijuana is how smoking ANYTHING is horrible for your health. Thanks for listening.
But Laura, that’s not the same as calling it a “gateway”. A certain percentage of people who drink go on to using hard drugs, too, but we don’t call it a “gateway drug”. A certain percentage of people who lose their virginity eventually have eight kids, a certain percentage of people who learn to drive eventually become race car drivers, a certain percentage of people who learn to read eventually write novels and a certain percentage of people who join the army eventually become generals, but we don’t argue that the latter follows inevitably from the former in ANY of those cases. Most people who use marijuana never go on to harder drugs, and most whores never commit real crimes, so calling either of them a “gateway” is a pernicious lie on the part of officials who wish to keep them illegal.
I’d argue that even in the cases of pot smokers who do go on to use harder drugs, the marijuana wasn’t any “gateway.” I mean really: if somebody is snorting coke, eating methamphetamine, and shooting up heroin, are we really surprised that he doesn’t turn his nose up at a little grass?
Weed (and prostitution) could be a gateway to more serious things in one way, though. Somebody who is already smoking weed (or selling sex) might, when offered a chance to, say, eat meth (or sell it) tend to think, “Well, I’m already breaking the law, so…” There might also be a tendency to think, “Well, everything the government told me about Mary Warner (exchanging sex for money) turned out to be a lie, so maybe they’re lying about the harms of this other thing, too. I mean, I haven’t committed suicide (become part of an international pimping ring), so maybe the meth won’t really give me a stroke (selling meth won’t really hurt anybody).”
Of course, neither stoners nor whores take that next step, most of the time. I suspect it would be even fewer if not for the illegality of the supposed “gateways.”
I listed the famous people because I wanted to point out the cases where some DO start with marijuana use and then go on to harder drugs. I’m in agreement with you on the examples you gave, i.e., people who join the military, etc. But, also wanted to point out the OTHER side of this. Personally I get tired of hearing how marijuana is “harmless” and never leads to other drugs in ALL cases. That’s disproven by the examples I listed. Those examples don’t automatically mean that I think that ALL who use it go on to harder drugs. I know 1st hand it doesn’t apply to all with alcohol either as I’ve been sober for a little over 11 years and have read up on recovery, etc., and have met several others in recovery. Speaking of Karla Tucker, you may want to check out her life story. She was raised to be a prostitute. Anyway, what I was getting at I’ve stated above. Sorry if I caused any confusion.
Personally I get tired of hearing how marijuana is “harmless” and never leads to other drugs in ALL cases.
And of course there is nobody, absolutely nobody making the case that cannabis isn’t good.
The gateway argument’s spurious nature is this : Thing X is made illegal by legislation, brought in to deter use of X, where thing X was legal/not legislated on before.
Due to the criminalisation of thing X, the supply of X can now only be obtained from a criminal element : the law-abiding suppliers of X shut down upon criminalisation; the only remaining supply becomes dominated by :
a) People who disagree with the new law’s introduction specifically, made criminals
b) People who disagree with the rule of law, criminals already
The latter group (b) say “Oooh, new victims (a) driven into the dark by Johnny Law, THANKS very much, Lawheads”
Especially if X is a strongly-driven need based desire (human sexual contact, recreational drugs) this patter will happen every time.
Now that the supply of X has fallen into the influence of (b), who clearly don’t give a fuck about the welfare of anyone else, including group (a), the thing X becomes a reason to bring people into contact with (b).
The gateway effect is *caused* by criminalising X, forcing (a) into contact with (b).
This is a pattern for “criminalise X”, regardless of the nature of X.
That’s why decriminalisation of consentual behaviour is a *bad fucking idea*.
Edit for the Oops my fingers factor..
This is why *CRIMINALISATION* of consentual behaviour is a “bad fucking idea”
😉
Yes, exactly. To the degree that any Gateway Effect exists at all, it is because of this.
Dear Sailor Barsoom, yes, there ARE people saying that marijuana isn’t some harmless drug. I know that and have for years, OK? It’s just I get tired of that view being the 1 that’s not put out as much and is also made fun of by some.
Since “marijuana is evil” is the view put out be the government, and is the only view allowed in PSAs, and the view upon which laws are based, and the view that determines whether or not people go to jail, I don’t worry that it isn’t getting enough exposure.
Yes, exactly. There are thousands of common misconceptions, many of them harmful, but it isn’t until politicians base laws on them or the police use them as excuses to arrest people that they become a real cause for concern. The mistaken idea that the 20th century ended on December 31st, 1999 is far more widespread than the idea that there is no such thing as evolution, but since actual laws are sometimes based on the latter error it’s of far greater concern than the former.
An acquaintance of mine once mentioned that LSD was in effect his gateway to marijuana: that is, some fellow acid-heads turned him on to a subtler appreciation of the green stuff.
I repeated this to another acquaintance, who thought for a moment and said that cocaïne had similarly been his gateway to good beer.