No Victim No crime, Are you a Belieber?

Pop Star Justin Bieber  was arrested on Thursday morning for apparently driving while intoxicated, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license. Later Bieber "made some statements that he had consumed some alcohol, and that he had been smoking marijuana and consumed some prescription medication" according to a police spokesperson.  While this is not good for the 19 year old singer, it is however a great lesson in the No Victim No Crime Theory. 

The act of driving under the influence is one of those "crimes" that has never really made much sense to me. Whether or not a person is intoxicated should be irrelevant when making the decision to press charges. In Bieber's case there has been no action that has resulted in the destruction of property or harm to another individual. Since the case lacks a victim it can not be considered a crime. With the lack of a victim in these cases there can be no crime. Even the act of an intoxicated person damaging or destroying his or her own vehicle and no other property there is still no victim as the intoxicated individual has only destroyed their own personal property by voluntarily consuming the intoxicating substance. Another point to be taken with this issue is the risk factor. Can we really legislate risk away? Is there a risk that a person who is impaired may injure another person or damage someone's property? Sure, but then too, there is the inherent risk that persons not afflicted in any way may do the same. At what point can we say that one is acceptable enough not to have restrictions placed upon it while the other must have restrictions and legislation?

The next charge of driving without a license is well, just a unnecessary law, it is just another way for the state to manipulate people into their control and a way to extract more revenue. A license has absolutely no real reason to exist except as a tool of control. That being said, the act of driving without a license has neither damaged another's property or actively aggressed against another person, therefor there is in this case also an absence of a victim and as such can not be labeled as a crime.

Now comes the fun stuff; Marijuana and prescription medication. The act of ingesting either Marijuana or Prescription medications does no real harm except to the person doing the ingesting. The lack of anyone to call a victim leaves no logic to have a penalty attached to this voluntary act. At what point does the legislating of consumable goods become too intrusive? It has been proven over and over again that the leading cause of death in the United States is Heart Disease caused by obesity, yet there are not laws on the amount of consumed calories or legislation dealing with the strict diet and exercise routine of all citizens. 

As Lysander Spooner words it in his work "Vices are not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty" Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. 
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another". Also stated in this work is the quote," It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of 
another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice 
toward others". 
This is the firm belief in self ownership, personal responsibility, and willingness to adhere to the repercussions of those actions.

As I said this incident is not ideal for Justin Beiber, but can be a very important lesson in Self Ownership and the No Victim No Crime Theory.

Here is a good Video by Christopher Cantwell on this case as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9hHuR8U6k