A short time ago I furled an article from the New West Network about a drug-and-prostitution ring in a small Montana town. A man named Dick Dasen helped a lot of young girls out financially in return for sexual favors. When one of the "Dasen girls" died in a car accident, the whole thing became unravelled and the depth of Dasen's activities became public.

There are a few things I take from the story. The author was as subtle as a sledge-hammer in pushing for more services for those addicted to meth and, honestly, I don't disagree. But being conservative gives me a different view of the events than I think those that don't share my point of view. While lamenting the lack of support for those confronted with addiction (generally a liberal theme), there are a couple of conservative lessons to be learned.

One thing the article demonstrates is how little help money can sometimes be to the poor. These Dasen Girls recieved huge amounts of money that went straight into the meth addictions. Moreso than the prostitution even, I think Dasen's biggest sin here is enabling the addiction. A welfare society may breed comfort for some, but for many it breeds helplessness and an insulation from the consequences of one's actions. This is something that Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform in the 90's helped alleviate.

I see it all the time at Thrifthaven, my run-down apartment complex. Those living on government support are the most likely to be alcoholics, the most likely to be meth addicts, and the least likely to have a future. One could argue that it's the addictions and not the government support causing this, but it feeds both ways. Without the responsibilities of work, there is less motivation to take care of your own business. Uncle Sam's got your back.

There is also a more liberal argument here to make sure that those who do work are compensated sufficiently so that they are rewarded more than those that don't work. But the more help they get that they do not earn, the less responsible they tend to be. The simple act of going to work, of being responsible to be somewhere forty hours a week, seems to make a tremendous difference.

The second conservative theme is not a strike against liberalism as much as libertarianism. Drug use and prostitution are two parts of the trifecta of "victimless crime" (euthanasia is the third). Yet one cannot possibly read this article and say that there haven't been any victims here. I'd also challenge a libertarian to read it and say that these people could not have otherwise led more productive lives had they not been sucked in to drugs and prostitution. It's also difficult to maintain that the communities themselves have not suffered a great deal by the self-affecting actions of some of its people.

Though it pains my libertarian heart to say it, I don't think that society can rightfully stand by while people drive themselves to ruin mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. While some people are lost causes, making drugs less available and illegal to use and possess makes less borderline individuals look away in moments of dispair when instant happiness is only a hit away. I've heard it argued that the illegalization of drugs doesn't actually provide a deterrent, but the illegality is one of the two major reasons I never partook in anything substantial. It made the drugs less available and it made the consequences of (getting caught) taking them more tangible. It's no coincidence that what have historically been my two biggest vices (alcohol and tobacco) are the two that are legal. Both came at times in my life when I was not happy and searching for a little relief. Many use the alcohol-tobacco anomoly as a reason to legalize drugs. To me it's the very essense of reasons not to.

And prostitution is an easy buck. I'm less concerned about the effect it has on the family than I probably should be and more concerned with the easy-way-out that it provides young women. I'm more sympathetic to legalized prostitution than I am legalized meth or crack. But it provides a false sense of financial security in women whose stock will depreciate considerably with age. And by virtue of the fact that it is (or can be) easy money, it's likely not to be treated the same way by someone who has to put in 40 hours a week on an assembly line or chained to a cubicle.

Now whether or not that's sufficient to keep it illegal I'm not sure. But the article that spawned this pontification demonstrates more clearly than I probably can about how many victims can get caught up in victimless crimes.

By-and-large, I don't think that the government can save us from ourselves. I also don't think that we should expect it to. However, even if we oppose these laws on principle (which I almost... almost do), we ought to recognize that there are a lot of incentives involved here. Ideally, the government should never have to be involved in tilting the incentive scales. But from time to time the immediate incentives to a particular path are so great that it is in everyone's best interest for government to tilt them back again with legal barriers.

[NWN article via Craig]