Drug War

Keep Your Laws Off My Body

The case for legalizing drugs, prostitution, organ sales, and other consensual acts.


"It's a free country."

That's a popular saying—and true in many ways. But for a free country, America does ban a lot of things that are perfectly peaceful and consensual. Why is that?

Here are some things you can't do in most states of the union: rent your body to someone for sex, sell your kidney, take recreational drugs. The list goes on. I'll discuss American prohibitions tonight at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again on Friday at 10) on my Fox Business program.

The prohibitionists say their rules are necessary for either the public's or the particular individual's own good. I'm skeptical. I think of what Albert Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Prohibition is force. I prefer persuasion. Government force has nasty unintended consequences.

I would think that our experience with alcohol prohibition would have taught America a lesson. Nearly everyone agrees it was a disaster. It didn't stop people from drinking, but it created new and vicious strains of organized crime. Drug prohibition does that now.

The prohibitionists claim that today's drugs are far more dangerous than alcohol.

But is that true? Or is much of what you think you know … wrong?

I believed the Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that drugs like crack and meth routinely addict people on first use.

But Jacob Sullum, who wrote Saying Yes, says, "If you look at the government's own data about patterns of drug use, it clearly is not true."

The data is remarkable: 8.5 million Americans have tried crack, but there are only 359,000 regular users. (The government defines "regular use" as using a drug at least once in the past 30 days.) More than 12 million tried meth, but only 314,000 still take it. The story is similar for heroin. Most people who try these "instantly additive drugs" do not get "hopelessly addicted." They give them up on their own.

As Sullum puts it: "The vast majority of people who use illegal drugs do not become heavy users, do not become addicts; it does not disrupt their lives. In fact, I would argue it enhances their lives. How do we know that? Because they use it."

But on the news, we constantly see people whose lives have been destroyed by drugs. Sullum says: "When you have prohibition, the most visible users are the ones who are most antisocial, most screwed up. They're the ones who come to the attention of the police. … People who present themselves as experts on drug use because they come into contact with all these addicts have a very skewed perspective because they are seeing a biased sample. The people who are well adjusted, responsible users are invisible."

My prohibition show will also touch on prostitution. I want ratings—I admit it. Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy says prostitution is "sexual slavery."

I think calling it slavery is an insult to those who've suffered real slavery. Slavery is force. Prostitution is consensual. On my show, I'll let a former "sex worker" and the prosecutor fight it out.

The prohibitionists also ban the sale of human organs. You aren't allowed to sell a kidney to someone who will die without one. Sally Satel, a physician who is the recipient of a kidney and the author of When Altruism Isn't Enough, says, "Altruism … is a beautiful virtue, but tomorrow at this time 13 people will be dead because they didn't get a kidney."

In a free country, we consenting adults should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone else. People who don't like what we do have every right to complain about our behavior, to boycott, to picket, to embarrass us. Bless the critics. They make us better people by getting us to think about what's moral. Let them mock and shame. But shaming is one thing—government force is another. Prohibition means we empower the state to send out people with guns to force people to do what the majority says is moral. That's not right.

And it doesn't even work.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.


NEXT: Recently at Reason.tv: Billionaires vs. Brooklyn's Best Bar—Eminent Domain Abuse & The Atlantic Yard Project

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m all for ending the war on drugs, but this year I’d settle for criminalizing hypocrisy. This would only apply to people holding elected office. Simple hypocrisy (like claiming to be for smaller government but voting for bailouts) would be ninety days in jail, gross hypocrisy (like promising to end the drug war, but doing nothing at all about it once elected) would be a year in prison, and aggravated hypocrisy (like prosecuting someone for an act that the DA has committed himself) would be double the usual sentence for the act in question. We could call it “Elliot’s Law”, or “The Obama Ordinance”.



    1. I think anyone who has actually done drugs at any point in their past and not served time in prison for it, should be prohibited from voting for or advocating the drug war.

    2. I would also add to that list

      1. Anyone who drives a car but won’t support off shore drilling for oil

      2. Anyone who drives a Prius but has ever objected to the construction of a chemical plant

      3. Anyone who has hardwood floors in their house or a wooden deck that also objected to logging.

      4. Anyone who voices concern about global warming, uses electricity and also objects to nuclear power.

      1. 5. Anyone who uses a computer to complain that corporations are evil.

        1. 6. Anyone who votes against extending unemployment benefits on account of we don’t have enough money for it but thinks we somehow have enough money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Jim bunning)

          1. Why is that necessarily hypocritical? Is it not possible that he thinks funding those wars is more important than extending unemployment insurance?

            You could apply that the other way and say “anyone who won’t vote to fund our troops in the field but then claims we have enough money for extended unemployment benefits”.

            1. Is it not possible someone thinks extending unemployment insurance is more important then funding wars?

              Make no mistake I am against both unemployment insurance and our empire overseas, but Jim Bunning shouldn’t be the one to say “we can’t afford this” when he just votes to fund the unneeded wars overseas

              1. You may disagree with him. But I don’t see how you can say he is hypocritical. Just wrong. Saying we have money for this but not for that, is just setting priorities.

              2. Bunning was trying to illustrate the hypocrisy of the democrats in this instance. They passed paygo only a few weeks prior and had waived the new parliamentary rule on every bill passed afterward. He didn’t vote no on extending the unemployment benefits but simply objected to waiving the paygo rule. Besides Reid could have overridden him at any time but found it more politically convenient to vilify him.

            2. Bunning didn’t object to extending the benefits, he wanted it to be paid for out of the funds already allocated in the Porkulus bill, instead of taking on additional debt.


        2. Anyone who uses the Internet to bitch about how government can’t do anything right.

          1. The government cannot do anything right.

          2. For that matter anyone who drinks water from any source other than a mud puddle in their back yard and bitches about how government can’t do anything right.

            1. My cities antiquated sewers drain into the local rivers and drinking supply water after 1/10 an inch of rain, so I take my chances with a brita. But I did get an opportunity to pay for a couple of billionaires’ sports stadiums.

              Second verse same as the first: The government cannot do anything right.

              Why do you like the government so much? I could see being ambivalent towards said entity, but you got love for it, man. Kinda creepy.

              1. No love here, just appreciation for what it does and can do, and an inability to stomach the myopic hypocrisy it would take to constantly trash the very concept of government, given that I likely wouldn’t be alive or able to provide for myself without it.

                1. O.K. I’ll give you defense, roads, and infrastructure what about everything else?

                2. No argument that the government CAN do many things. A simple Google can show you all the inventions from Soviet Russia.

                  But to argue that without such things as “government services”, you would not be alive or capable of surviving is to argue that government man has powers beyond that of private man.

                  Undoubtedly, society would look very different without the vast “government services” system we live within, but people would continue to prioritize their needs and desires and act towards obtaining them.

                  1. In Soviet Russia, inventions google you!

                    Sorry, I had to.

                    I actually looked this up, and most of the devices are nifty instruments of death and destruction.

                3. Are you handicapped? Because if you are, then I’m not going to make the cynical comment to your statement that I want to make….

                4. It’s not the very concept of government… it’s those who run roughshod with it once they sink their claws into its power source.

                  But you’re okay with that as long as a (D) is after the perp’s name.

            2. The federal government is fairly good at dropping bombs in far away lands, but they do occasionally screw that up as well.

              1. Eureka!
                Tony loves the government because he hates brown people.

              2. The federal government is fairly good at dropping bombs in far away lands, but they do occasionally screw that up as well.

                Private entities would do it better.

            3. Who says government can’t do anything right? After all, most people like the Bill of Rights?

              1. Please ignore the second question mark. Or turn it into a period, you know.

              2. The people who like the Bill of Rights, generally don’t like the government. And vice versa.

                1. Yeah, I got you, but I consider the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights acts of government. So even people that don’t like big government would probably admit that government’s capable of doing good. I don’t mind the roads and sewer systems or power infrastructure either.

                  It’s obviously absurd to say everything government does is good or bad. But like WYW and short, fat, bastard point out, much of what gov’t does could be done by private enterprise. It’s a good debate to have in many areas, minarchism is a valuable philosophy IMO.

                  1. I completely concur, but if you give the bastards an inch they’ll take a mile. If you concede that your water is drinkable and next thing you know you’re fending off arguments about food police and overpaid bus drivers.

                    1. I agree, capitol l. Unfortunately, some people accept, if not encourage government’s continuous growth, seemingly not questioning what the eventual outcome would be.

                    2. I know you were just funnin’ Tony, it’s just that I think he was setting up a straw man, and I, like about a half-dozen other people, was trying to express how many minarchist-types really feel about the gov’t.

                  2. The Bill of Rights is the government SAYING they’ll do something good.

                    1. No gao, it’s a contract between the government and the governed. The governed consents to be governed with the limitations on power being the cost the government must pay for the privilege of that power.

                      No rights are granted or promises made, the document simply spells out the scope of government power. In a perfect world everything I just wrote would be true, eh waddya gonna do?

              3. It wasn’t government that gave us the Bill of Rights. It was the fear of Government that got it included in the Constitution

            4. I get my water from the well, pump, and filtering system I paid to install and maintain all by myself, asshole.

              1. Bet you had to pay some hefty government permit fees though…I guess they do one thing well…tax us to death!

            5. My well, which was installed on my property by a private vendor, provides an ample supply of clean drinkable water.

              No doubt that in an urban environment a communal source of water would be more efficient. However, it does not follow that the communal source must be public. A private entity could just as easily provide water.

              1. Pointing to government financed roads, water, power, etc. does not demonstrate that such services are produced efficiently. One would expect that if you have an endless stream of revenue, you can accomplish something.

                Show us that the millions and billions of dollars, confiscated from the public, produced the best possible product for the costs.

            6. Some people do have wells or get their water from private companies. But that doesn’t fit into your narrow world view.

            7. Tony, you ignorant twat. What do you think people did for water supplies before cities started providing centralized water distribution systems? Ever heard of a “well”?


              1. The fact is that us Libertarians love little thought puzzles on how everything should be privatized when in all actuality that isn’t realistic. Perhaps, communities could raise local bonds to pay for a well, etc then once the note is paid, the people own it. I guess they call that public water works. Anyhow.back to my fun little Libertarian thought games……

          3. Tony, you really should give up this myth. The government happened to pick one particular protocol set (TCP/IP) out of half a dozen or so that were in competition at the time, and a bunch of private vendors offered connections using that protocol.

            It does not follow that because the ARPANET was the beginning of what we call the internet today, that none of this would have happened otherwise.


            1. Wrong. Not a myth. TCP/IP’s development was paid for by DARPA and released into the wild by DARPA. Following that, the NSF built the first backbones.


              You’re typing on a ubiquitous, open infrastructure that would not exist without government coercion. Every keystroke you send and every character you read upon it is a big ol’ asterisk on the pubertarian myth of permanent governmental malevolence. Ha ha.

          4. Tony, that is like saying a retarded child can feed himself. See, he can do stuff!

            1. +1

              the simile is amazingly apt…

      2. 7. Charlie Rangel

      3. “Anyone who has hardwood floors in their house or a wooden deck that also objected to logging.”

        That WOULDN’T be me. Back in ’89 I had the perimeter of my yard fenced in with an 8″ redwood privacy fence. I had to wait about 2-3 months after ordering it for it to be delivered. Back then, they would wait until enough people had ordered enough redwood to justify cutting down an old-growth redwood tree.

        21 years later, it’s worn out, so I’ve just been taking it down and burning it one section at a time. Redwood doesn’t give off much of an aroma when burning like maple or apple wood do.

        1. You special ordered and waited and had an old growth red wood tree cut down for your fence. That is fabulously subversive. I love it.

          1. I’m told it’s no longer done.

            It was a damn fine fence with metal-framed gates (8′ needs that to stay square over time). It felt like you were inside a fort (think F-Troop). Very private, so you could do most anything you would in the house ? outside. 😉

            The downside was that over time, the 8×8 posts would start to rot at the ground level (despite being set in concrete) so when it got super windy, they would snap. I replaced several posts in ’97 (hell of a job as the posts were buried 6′ deep and encased in cement), so when it happened again in 2005, I just said fuck it.

            I’ll be replacing it with 8′ wrought iron as soon as the seven remaining sections are removed and returned to the atmosphere from whence they came.

            1. I replaced my fence with a 12 guage shotgun. Much better for the environment.

            2. Awesome story. Redwoods are pretty but nice, strong fences are prettier. The Environmentalist wackos haven’t figured it out that trees are renewable….

        2. We’ll be renovating my office sometime in the next few years. I’ve specified endangered hardwood for the trim and floors. I’m not picky about what kind – I’m openminded that way.

          1. make sure to have your desk chair made of white rhino leather

        3. Very private, so you could do most anything you would in the house ? outside…so when it happened again in 2005, I just said fuck it. Did you mean not? 😉

          1. Yes, a moon.

  2. I don’t know what’s good for me but Chuck Schumer and Trent Lott do.

    Red Team or Blue, that has to give you pause.

    1. This has always been one of the practical reasons I’m for less government intervention. Due to my wife’s involvement in politics, I’ve met a lot of people in government at the local and state level. In general, they are very friendly, personable, gregarious folks. And also in general, most of them are not very smart. I don’t want my life subject to the whims of the kind of dolts that run for city council and state rep.

      1. In my work I deal with people in the federal government. I must agree with your assessment. They are generally well meaning and nice people, but I’ve yet to meet one I would describe as thoughtful or intelligent.
        If the ones I’ve met are an accurate sample of our federal bureaucracy, it’s no small wonder our country is on the fast track to Hell.

      2. Dude- I have seen some of the biggest social misfits in local and state politics. I can’t believe how some of these people get elected.

    Way to go John. You are your own man and a champion of freedom once more. Now be sure to compare and contrast what it’s like to be a Pariah at FOX vs ABC

  4. No one thinking of the children? lol…

  5. I’m getting pretty sick of the argument that people’s stupidity “costs society $X billions of dollars” and therefore we should ban/criminalize/tar and feather those that do such things.

    Clayton Cramer wrote this disgusting article at PJM touting a recent British medical study that stated a small amount of chronic pot smokers become bi-polar after repeated use, and as of 2002, schizophrenia alone of the mental disorders was costing the United States $63 billion a year in medical costs and in disability payments so therefore we should ban pot.

    Fuck these guys. I’m so sick of this argument. It’s been thrown around like candy during the health care debates; fat people raise health care costs-BAN DORITOS!! Smokers raise health care costs-BAN CIGARETTES!! Drinkers raise health care costs -BAN BOOZE!! Unprotected sex raises health care costs- BAN SEX!! Jamming an ice-pick in to my temple raises health care costs -BAN ICE-PICKS!!!

    Are we as a country ever going to come to the conclusion that the government is the WORST POSSIBLE ORGANIZATION AVAILABLE to help correct and discourage unhealthy behavior?

    1. A relative of mine has basicaly ruined her life. We are convinced she is undiagnosed bipolar, she won’t get help. She has turned to drugs, and theft, etc. I seriously don’t think the drugs caused her mental state, because she became like that in her teens before the drugs started.

      Of course, from what I can see, the law has hurt her far more than the drugs. Because of the law she must deal with violent criminals to get what she wants, she is thrown in jail with more violent offenders, she has to steal to get money instead of the lower price a free market would give. She has to deal with moronic parole officers who cannot spell or read because we need so many workers to feed the war effort we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. And she could get help to get over the drugs which she cannot get now because to ask for help would be admitting breaking the law.

      Not only that but adequate treatment is unavailable. Studies have shown treating heroin addiction with heroin is far more successful than with methodone, just like we treat nicotine addiction with nicotine. But god forbid she get treatment that works using such an “evil” drug.

      The drug war has done nothing but harm people who need help.

      1. Sorry to hear your story PD, I have watched friends go through the same downward spiral and it sucks when you feel like there’s no way of getting through to them. You’ve detailed the worst part of these situations; people afraid to get help because they don’t want to be arrested, thus they break other laws to feed their habit and add on to the list of problems they will have to deal with before they can come out the other side.

        Again, the government is not your doctor, your mother, or your psychiatrist. And attempting to force behavior changes by arresting people is madness.

      2. The moral of the story is to not try these substances in the first place. True they are not as addictive as most think, but they do destroy lives. By far, alcohol destroys more lives than weed. Have you ever heard someone smoke a bowl and then say “I’m going home to beat my old lady.”

    2. Is there a silver lining to this cloud? Most of the impetus for these bans, and for Obamacare, comes from a desire to end “free riding” on the rest of society when the bad things happen. This is an essentially libertarian impulse but the solution is screwed: instead of ending free riding by demanding personal
      responsibility and accountability, they seek to end free riding by banning every activity that has the possibility of creating a free rider.

      1. I think that different perspectives on “free riding” are at the heart of political differences.

        1. You have a good point. I think I read somewhere that the “free rider” problem was a basic issue in human society since hunter-gatherer days.

          1. Right. The cheiftan/shaman thing.

          2. Wasn’t there some guy around here (John?) who said that opening a strip club next to his house should be illegal because it would devalue his property and “cost” him money.

            1. But it would greatly increase his happiness.

    3. Are we as a country ever going to come to the conclusion that the government is the WORST POSSIBLE ORGANIZATION AVAILABLE to help correct and discourage unhealthy behavior?

      Exhibit A – Cities Shortening Yellow Traffic Lights for Deadly Profit

      1. Even though I am opposed to licensing laws, I would like to see one of those city officials prosecuted for practising engineering without a license.

        Believe it or not, there are engineering methods that have been developed by traffic engineers to determine the appropriate timing of all light phases. Following those procedures is pretty much essential for public safety.

        Some asshole official fucking with traffic light timing is guilty of serious criminal misconduct.

        1. I would rather see them prosecuted for some flavor of manslaughter, once the inevitable happens.

    4. I did not read much about the British study, but my anecdotal experience with drug users and (admittedly limited) foray into researching the subject informs me thus: people who use/abuse drugs do not “become” bi-polar or schizophrenic, they use/abuse because they are bipolar or schizophrenic.

      Drug use does not necessarily cause the mental disorder, but is often used to self-medicate the psychic and physical pain associated with undiagnosed (or even diagnosed) conditions.

      1. Yup. Part of the issue there is the side effects from the legal drugs available to treat the underlying condition. The side effects are often worse than the disease to the sufferer. Self-medication seems like a better option.

        1. tell me about it. My best friend of 20+ years is bipolar, likely has been for most of her life, and gets little relief from standard antidepressants and mood stabilizers. Give her a joint though and she’s fine for a day or two, no side effects and no hangovers.

          I will never buy the drug warriors arguments against marijuana.

        2. I would say the decision to choose cheap booze, and heroin over parkinson inducing thorazine is a rational one.

      2. I have taken care of a bipolar teenager. Bipolar people self-medicate with uppers when they are down and occasionally with downers when they are up.

        The therapists explained that bipolar disorder is very hard to treat because the patients like being sick (as least on the upward part of the cycle). Being well steals the part of their life that they really really like.

        1. I’ve known ADD/ADHD folks that sold or threw away their drugs because, as one of them put it, “they make me feel slow and stupid”.

          1. I don’t have ADD and they make me feel fast and smart.

            1. That’s cause ADD meds are speed. ADD is caused by an understimulated brain resulting in the inability to maintain focus on anything for more that a few minutes. You give speed to someone with ADD and they calm down. Unfortunately, this has become a mechanism for diagnosing ADD — give a kid a pill and if he/she calms down then he/she must be ADD.

        2. They often take SSRIs, etc to induce mania. They often describe it as a “coke bender beyond belief.”

      3. How about we just make being bi-polar illegal? The law would be at least as effective at stopping people from becoming bi-polar as it is at stopping people from smoking pot, right? Think of how much safer we would be if the police turned thier SWAT efforts at locking up all people who are bi-polar!

    5. That study suffers from the fatal flaw of not knowing which way the causality arrow points.

      Are they bipolar because they smoked pot, or did they smoke pot to self-medicate their bi-polar disorder?

      I know which I think is more likely, but somehow I’m not using my views to support a law mandating that schizophrenics smoke pot.

  6. Where is the alt-text in the racist photo?

    1. You have a problem with fedoras?

      1. I love fedoras!

        That looks like a Panama hat to me.

        1. I think it is a great picture. I think it ought to be the basis for his painting in the capital. It just captures all that Obama is.

          1. Shepard Fairey could paint it while in prison for perjury.

          2. John, John, John, [sigh]

            Did you miss the obligatory-ness of my comment?

            1. I am little dense today. My apologies.

        2. Jack Ruby’s IIRC. He bought it at auction.

  7. A new Stossel article… it must be Thursday. A couple nice points as usual, but getting tired of it being just a teaser for the show.

  8. John should have used a picture of Geraldo Rivera smoking pot from his ’74 story.

    All the cool mustachioed news guys do it 🙂

  9. This article was published at WorldNetDaily yesterday.

    I’m interested in what letters to the editor this will generate from the busy-body social cons over there.

  10. John Stossel, the Andrew Ryan of Fox Business.

    1. A man chooses, a slave obeys.

      1. And a crazy objectivist tries to build an underwater utopia.

  11. Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy says prostitution is “sexual slavery.”

    from which we liberate women … by throwing them in chains.

    1. And lounge singers are victims of “musical slavery”. Friggin’ morons that don’t even understand the words they use disgust me..

      1. These are people who do not understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary, society and government, emotion and reason.

        And they run the show.

    2. I wonder when someone is going to make a movie about that.

    3. Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy says prostitution is “sexual slavery.”

      Because nothing says slavery like getting paid for services rendered.

      1. They don’t get paid, the pimp does.

        1. Super Freakonomics has a section on prostitution in Chicago. It mentions that pimps get about a 25% cut, but the prostitutes who use pimps end up with a higher net pay while working fewer tricks. It seems that rather than enslaving whores, pimps are adding value.

          I should close with a snarky insult, but I’m not feeling it. Maybe a regular can oblige?

        2. all the more reason to make it legal so the prostitute has legal recourse against an unfair pimp

    4. Wendy Murphy is an extremely morally bankrupt individual. She still says that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty and she’s made all kinds of exaggerated claims regarding sex crimes. I’d say she’s maybe worse than Andrew Thomas from Arizona.

      1. Is she also the skank who claims that marriage is legal rape?

        1. Is skank a medical term?

          1. When you work in the ER it is…

            1. Those Baylor girls must have really abused you;-)

  12. I think when Wendy talks about prostitution being sexual slavery she refers to pimps forcing his hoes into it. But she misses: freelance hookers, ranches, callgirls, escorts. Those types of prostitutes all do it by choice.

    If prostitution were to be legalized, most pimps would either be forced to quit or found a legitimate business, and such ‘sexual slavery’ would be ended.

    1. Loads of the girls with pimps are there willingly too.

    2. Some of those bitches at the Cathouse are hot. I especially like Isabella Soprano…..nummy.

  13. “send out people with guns to force people to do what the majority says is moral.”

    Isn’t that immoral?

    1. People with guns-the very bedrock of our civilization.

      1. No, no… people with guns is anarchy… OTOH people with guns in uniform = civilization

  14. Under the new regime the entire concept of “your” body will be alien. You will be forced to enroll in government health insurance. Everything about “your” body will overnight become a matter of public policy. Cheeseburgers, beer, tobacco, motorcycles, soda pop, you can kiss it all goodbye.

    1. So if I wave my dick at passing motorists, they’ll punish my senator?

      1. The Law is the Law.

      2. You named your cock Senator?

        1. Is he an incumbent? TEEHEE

      3. Joe_D. It gives new meaning to objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

    2. But not the big “O’s” Ciggs. He will be part of the ruling class where they can smoke, have hookers and toilet paper without slivers.

  15. “The prohibitionists say their rules are necessary for either the public’s or the particular individual’s own good”

    Prohibitionists need to be forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment for, you know, their own good. They need our help investing their lives with some semblance of meaning and order. That way, they won’t psychologically compelled to try to control everything except, of course, their own uncontrollable need to tell other people how to live.

  16. You know what pisses me off – every single participant in the organ transplant food chain is certain to get their cut except for the one who is supplying the one irreplaceable component.

  17. Thank goodness for John Stossel. These days I feel like I might go mad from all those who would love the government to get further involved in our lives.

  18. You named your cock Senator?

    I know i just did.

    1. Junior or Senior?

  19. “On my show, I’ll let a former ‘sex worker’ and the prosecutor fight it out.”

    Mr. Stossel, if you’re REALLY interested in ratings, the above would somehow include ranch dressing. 🙂

    1. ranch dressing? Unless that is some sort of euphemism I’ve never heard of before, I can think of a few other things that would be more appealing than ranch dressing… perhaps its just because I am more of an oil and vinegar guy.

  20. by Go Daddy?

    1. Go Daddy sold out to the PCers.

      1. Don’t be stupid Heller. They are a business and they just pulled you by the dick to get you in the door. Now they have to expand their market share and try not to piss off more women.

  21. Altruism … is a beautiful virtue, but tomorrow at this time 13 people will be dead because they didn’t get a kidney

    An Objectivist would phrase this, “Altruism … is the ultimate evil, and the result of relying on it here is that tomorrow at this time 13 people will be dead because they didn’t get a kidney”

  22. Why does John always have to put movie spoilers at the start of every show?

  23. John, when you outlaw something that people are doing, you are creating crime.

  24. I don’t think that’s how you make eggs.

  25. This guy is throwing alcohol under a bus trying to legalize drugs.

  26. Ron likes to trade one crime for another.

  27. Sullum is not wearing a Fox Business suit.

  28. These people who have never seen anything more addictive than _______ need to get out more.

  29. Ouch, Nick just called John stupid.

  30. Ha, the crack of stimulants.

  31. Great. Now I’m jonesing for K2.


    1. I find my best accessories on the internet and in little shops. Haven’t used the yellow pages in ages.

  33. There is no way she’s going to back up the “sexual slavery” stance.


    I forgot.

  35. Ha, we can debate whether it’s a choice… but we’re not going to.

  36. She has a bachelor’s degree… IN WHORING!

  37. We can’t just outlaw child prostitution.

  38. John just handed his show over to this slattern.

  39. Wendy standing up for women… whether they want it or not.

  40. Throwing kidney-outraged Fox anchors under the Stossel bus.

  41. We need to facilitate voluntary kidney donation… BUT NOT BY PAYING FOR IT!

  42. Sounds like Virginia is a little miffed she didn’t get paid.

  43. They should give any prostitute using extasy after selling a kidney the electric chair.

  44. Danovich does not look happy.

  45. Stossel wants people to be able to marry MULTIPLE ducks.


  47. Those slopes Gretchen sees are so damn slippery.

  48. Made pot boring? Well, it is the Netherlands.

  49. Wendy Murphy is a sick joke who once advocated abducting an 8 year old girl from her loving parents because of said 8 year old girl’s portrayal in a satirical ad mocking Bill O’Reilly. Seriously, I can’t make this shit up.


    Truly one sickening individual.

    Incidentally, note that in the above video she inadvertently admits to committing what she calls “the worst kind of child abuse”.

  50. I wanted to sell a kidney to buy a prostitute but I was too high.

  51. Last time I got busted in Sydney it was by a drug dog (li’l fucker). It sat beside me, I turned around and saw the cops. I smiled, reached into my pocket & dropped my bud into a waiting hand. They searched me blah blah and then gave me (I kid thee not) a “Cannabis Caution”. I laffed n laffed. Apparently New South Wales courts are so busy that you get two cautions before having to appear at court. I sniggered & offered to pay the $200 fine via credit card anyway and they had the decency to look embarrassed. I was so chastened I rushed home & scored some more off my flatmate! Howz about a “War on Thugs”?

  52. Will America adopt this principle and protect womens rights also?


  53. What I would really like is to be able to buy my Lipitor inexpensively OTC from any vendor. Where is the freedom?

  54. Love John Stossel. He is the kind of Goldwater Republican I grew up around. The new breed are hypocrites.

    1. Dislike John Stossel. He is the kind of Republican I am around. The new breed are hypocrites, just like the old breed.

    2. John,

      You must be some kind of imbecile. Nancy Pelosi is for relaxing laws on prostitution, decriminalizing marijuana, and making organ donation easier. I suppose she is a Goldwater Republican. Please.

      What a fool you are, clearly you have been smoking too much marijuana and sexing up so many prostitutes you can not think straight. Republicans have NEVER been about immorality, you jerk.

  55. I have never understood why laws exist to prevent compensation for donation of stem cells, bone marrow, etc.
    It would be easy to prove that people have died while waiting for an organ transplant that might have happened if there were compensation in place… but I can almost understand the reflexive instinct against sale of organs. I cannot being to see rational purpose behind the ban on stem cell or marrow compensation, since both can be donated without a permanent loss to the donor!

  56. The sad thing about the ban on selling organs concerns livers. A donor can donate a portion of a healthy liver, save the life of a person, and after several years, when the liver regenerates, which it will, do it all over again. This prohibition is yet another of Al Gore’s gifts to pseudoscience

  57. The sad thing about the ban on selling organs concerns livers. A donor can donate a portion of a healthy liver, save the life of a person, and after several years, when the liver regenerates, which it will, do it all over again. This prohibition is yet another of Al Gore’s gifts to pseudoscience

  58. Until the health system teaches people to take responsibility for their actions (i.e. you take the drugs, you pay your own bills), the public pays for those citizens who abuse their own bodies at our expense.

  59. Excellent points, but when I see Albanian girls on the streetcorners of Milan at 2 a.m., I tend to agree with the ‘slavery’ angle. I assume some mobster has her passport.

  60. “In a free country, we consenting adults should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don’t hurt anyone else.”

    No. You DO hurt yourself and others in ways you cannot fathom.

    There’s a reason we have morals and why Society is justified in codifying moral law.

    1. I can disprove the morality = law thingy:

      Murder is illegal because it is the ultimate infringement on the rights of the individual. Therefore, it is logical to keep murder illegal.

      Rape, abuse (child or adult), arson and other crimes against property, theft and fraud… all are infringements on the rights of the individual.

      A grown, competent adult smoking a joint… where is the infringement, unless one views the human body as the property of the government?

      1. Where do you categorize interfering when the person is totally addicted? Is that not a morality decision?

  61. Apart from sexual services, are there other activities/services one can lawfully give away but cannot (in most jurisdictions) lawfully sell? The only other example I can think of is voting.

    Organ donation might qualify, but the sale of some body parts (e.g., blood, eggs, semen) is lawful.

    There are restrictions on governmental officials’ decisionmaking, such as a prohibition on bribery, but it is lawful to pay a government official a salary.

    What other examples can anyone think of?

  62. Be interesting to see what the affect of removing all drug related regulation would be on the price of health care (including requirements to acquire thru a guild, medical and pharma, import controls, etc.). In a stroke it would enable world-wide competition for diagnosis and prescription, as well as competition (and peer review) of all these products. Think “newegg” for pharma w/ online reviews, perhaps augmented by a notary’s certification of extreme ratings.

    Granted, we’d see a resurgence of Laetrile like near-hoaxes but could that be any worse than the situation we have today? At least individuals would be responsible for their own foolishness, not doctors and the trial lawyers.

  63. Do whatever you want to your own body-shoot it up, stuff it with botox, disease it, sleaze it, sell it for a dime, even stuck a tube in the nape of your own neck to suck out your own brain-IT’S YOUR BODY, YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT however keep in mind that when you go to have an abortion it is never your brain sucked out.

    The scientific fact is that all uniquely distinct human beings with their own uniquely distinct human DNA have the right to life as all other human beings.

    Keep this scientific fact in mind when discussing ‘Body and Law and Rights to’

  64. Do you want to know what the real insult is to people who suffered through slavery is? When gay right advocates claim the supposed “oppression” they suffer is the same as slavery and their quest for equal (code for special) rights is the same as the civil rights movement.

  65. So what about gay marriage? For, or against? Funny how a post of “keep *your* laws off *my* body” says nothing against ridiculous anti-gay laws (and yes, any anti-gay-marriage law IS an anti-gay law, unless someone wants to try and say that gay marriage is not something that only gays do, by definition)

    And you know what a real insult is to people who suffered through slavery? Seeing idiots try to put down another minority once it’s illegal to put down the first (You, Dirk).

    Me marrying a man or a woman… hmm, it’s a special right for me to marry a man? No, you’ll get the same right, too, don’t worry. But, just like I will never marry a woman even though I’m allowed to, you will never marry a man even though you’ll be allowed to. Would you like a straight-marriage ban, though?

  66. Nice piece. Keep Going, Thank you.

  67. If there is no free will, all prohibitions and consequences are only dressage of monkeys. We have to keep this in mind, but we have to live being responsible for our acts.

  68. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on regulating and controling various aspects of our lives every day.

    It seems like governments (and people behind it) are obsessed with keeling us in control.

    Im affraid things will only get worse in the future.

  69. when it comes to drug addiction and usage, why don’t we let those who wants to do drugs do what they want, as long as they can contain and prevent themselves from doing violent things to others, its their body they are abusing, not anyone elses. so lets give them what they want. that’s freedom.

  70. Very very informative post. Whats not to like? Terry from How to lose weight fast

  71. The slavery point is a very valid point.. I am sure that those that were and are real slaves would completely disagree that prostitution is slavery.

  72. es bueno encontrar gente que cuelgue sus informaciones y opiniones en blog y foros, is good that person attack his opinion and information in blog, best regards from spain, barricas, barriles de roble, venta de barricas, barricas usadas

  73. es bueno encontrar gente que cuelgue sus informaciones y opiniones en blog y foros, is good that person attack his opinion and information in blog, best regards from spain, barricas, barriles de roble, venta de barricas, barricas usadas

  74. I’ve attempted most if not all of them over the years and I always appear back again to Android. It’s the easiest to make use of and is fast to navigate about.

  75. Great informative article.

  76. This is a single of these things that happens to everybody each now and then

  77. I admire the valuable details you offer in your posts. I’ll bookmark your weblog…

  78. America is far more better in terms of law don’t you think that, many poor countries are just not good enough for their citizen. I love my country. how to lose weight fast

  79. I are going to be waiting for more terrific news from you in the nearest future.army surplus

  80. Took me time for you to read all of the observations, but I truly enjoyed the post.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.