Abolish Victimless Crimes:

[The2ndAmendment]

So, when your kid is arrested for drug possession you will give the dealer a free pass?
So, when your wife cheats on you, while it's not a crime will you give her a free pass?
So, when some punk bursts in your house and try to steel what you have, but finds nothing worthwhile to take, you give him/her a free pass?

Just asking, because, according to your "LOGIC" if the innocent victim of racial persecution who invaded your house takes nothing from you, his act is NOT a crime.

Children and non-adults receive extra protection under the law since they cannot make informed choices. This has already been declared on this thread before you typed this response, so you'd intentionally ignoring our answers, so don't' expect us to respond to you after this.

Cheating is not a crime. You will deal with you wife like a normal civilized human being, the way most conflicts of interest should be resolved, instead of through the courts.

If some punk bursts into my house, he'll be shot dead with 12 gauge 00 buckshot. Also learn how to spell "steal."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How about reckless driving?

How about driving drunk?

Those are victimless crimes...until the worst happens.

There is a reasonable application of law to PREVENT the need for a victim to charge a crime.

How many times are we going to answer this exact same question? Read the thread up to this point.

 

[BlindBoo]

I can generally sympathize with the idea that we have WAY too many people in prison to call ourselves a "free" country. I don't think pot should get people thrown into prison, but no sane person can argue that unregulated access to coke and meth will make society better.

Well generally speaking isn't that the kind of market we have for coke and meth right now. It drives the price up exponentially, while decreasing purity and safety of the product. Arm robbery goes up and criminal gang activity goes up (on a world wide scale now). Regulated access to these substances would make society better than the fascist, draconian interdict and incarcerate policy we have now.

One shouldn't even have to buy pot, hell it's a flower that everyone can grow.

 

[BlindBoo]

I can generally sympathize with the idea that we have WAY too many people in prison to call ourselves a "free" country. I don't think pot should get people thrown into prison, but no sane person can argue that unregulated access to coke and meth will make society better.

We regulate your hamburger. Your hamburger is legal. Right now we have completely unregulated access to cocaine. I do not do drugs. I have not done drugs in almost 15 years and more than 2000 miles from here. I guarantee that I can find and acquire cocaine tonight if I so desired (at least I could if I were in country). 15 minutes with Google can set me up with an unregulated untested whore as well.

When you legalize it THEN regulation actually becomes possible. So, in reality, you are right, unfettered access to unregulated cocaine is harmful so maybe we should STOP that practice and legalize it.

Ease of access is one of the worst arguments for legalization I have ever heard.

I can murder someone in less than 30 seconds. Right now we have completely unregulated access to murder. Should we legalize murder then?

Murder is not a victimless crime.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We regulate your hamburger. Your hamburger is legal. Right now we have completely unregulated access to cocaine. I do not do drugs. I have not done drugs in almost 15 years and more than 2000 miles from here. I guarantee that I can find and acquire cocaine tonight if I so desired (at least I could if I were in country). 15 minutes with Google can set me up with an unregulated untested whore as well.

When you legalize it THEN regulation actually becomes possible. So, in reality, you are right, unfettered access to unregulated cocaine is harmful so maybe we should STOP that practice and legalize it.

Ease of access is one of the worst arguments for legalization I have ever heard.

I can murder someone in less than 30 seconds. Right now we have completely unregulated access to murder. Should we legalize murder then?

Murder is not a victimless crime.

g5000 often exposes his inner-Authoritarian punk. I would be interesting to see if he disagrees with anything currently going on in the United States, except those issues that are clearly divided on partisan lines.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I can generally sympathize with the idea that we have WAY too many people in prison to call ourselves a "free" country. I don't think pot should get people thrown into prison, but no sane person can argue that unregulated access to coke and meth will make society better.

Nor does a person using drugs harm anyone else.

If a guy likes to snort a few lines on the weekend or just a few times a year for celebratory occasions who is he hurting and does he deserve to be put in prison?

 

[eflatminor]

If a guy likes to snort a few lines on the weekend or just a few times a year for celebratory occasions who is he hurting and does he deserve to be put in prison?

When did this conversation turn to President Obama?

 

[MikeK]

I dont know any victimless crimes off the top of my head. But regardless of that, how does the number of people in prisons suggest we need to eliminate crimes to get them out. They wouldnt be there if they didn't commit crimes. No one forced them to. Holding them accountable to the laws of our society isn't a bad thing merely because it makes them a criminal. That logic makes no sense.

How about instead of decriminalizing actions, we as a society step up and start obeying the law?

Let's suppose for the sake discussion the head of Homeland Security announces, and the Congress approves in the interest of combating terrorism, that citizens are now required by law to submit to searches, including body searches, vehicle searches, or residence searches, at any time of day by any police officer with no warrant requirement.

How would you feel about that? Don't think it can't happen because it certainly could. And if you think the Constitution would preclude it keep in mind the Supreme Court already has taken it upon itself to change the Probable Cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to Reasonable Suspicion, which essentially means a hunch on the part of a police officer to search whomever they please with total impunity.

 

[Pete7469]

I can generally sympathize with the idea that we have WAY too many people in prison to call ourselves a "free" country. I don't think pot should get people thrown into prison, but no sane person can argue that unregulated access to coke and meth will make society better.

Well generally speaking isn't that the kind of market we have for coke and meth right now. It drives the price up exponentially, while decreasing purity and safety of the product. Arm robbery goes up and criminal gang activity goes up (on a world wide scale now). Regulated access to these substances would make society better than the fascist, draconian interdict and incarcerate policy we have now.

One shouldn't even have to buy pot, hell it's a flower that everyone can grow.

This is a pretty thought provoking thread, and though I rarely even slightly agree with you I can find nothing to disagree with in this post.

Nor does a person using drugs harm anyone else.

If a guy likes to snort a few lines on the weekend or just a few times a year for celebratory occasions who is he hurting and does he deserve to be put in prison?

A person who becomes an addict can be a problem. If they have a family or others depend on them, and they're now drug addled madmen someone else (us) has to pick up the tab. When thye can no longer function, tax payers end up sustaining them. I'd be all for public funded treatment, but if they fail to become self sufficient they can starve for all I care. That's not what would happen though.

We already have addicts and alcoholics on disability as it is.

If we were to regulate the substances so someone could purchase small amounts for recreation would that solve the problem?

I think not. We loosely regulate all sorts of drugs that people still manage to abuse. If the gov't "rationed" recreational drugs, non-users could still find a black market to sell it to hardened and devoted addicts.

 

[MikeK]

I dont know any victimless crimes off the top of my head. [...]

Suppose you buy an ounce of marijuana, take it home, put some in a pipe and smoke it, or bake a pan of brownies and eat some, and the police break down your door and arrest you -- and don't think exactly that, and worse, hasn't happened thousands of times in this free Nation. Whether or not you end up in prison or are sentenced to probation, a fine and or community service, etc., you will be burdened for life with a criminal record.

Please tell us exactly who is the victim of your "crime?" Assuming you are an adult, who have you harmed?

PS: In case you don't believe raids of this nature don't happen all over America on a daily basis, go here: Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute

 

[eflatminor]

A person who becomes an addict can be a problem.

Can be. Might not be. Doesn't warrant, IMO, incarcerating people because someone "might" cause a problem in the future.

If they have a family or others depend on them, and they're now drug addled madmen someone else (us) has to pick up the tab. When thye can no longer function, tax payers end up sustaining them.

Only if you buy into the idea that taxpayers should be on the hook for the poor choices of others. I do not.

I'd be all for public funded treatment, but if they fail to become self sufficient they can starve for all I care. That's not what would happen though.

I cannot accept that because government meddles in what should be voluntary charity, it gives them the right to preemptively incarcerate someone because of what they might do.

We already have addicts and alcoholics on disability as it is.

And we shouldn't. But that's not the point. Decriminalizing drugs does not necessarily mean we'll have more people on disability...which we shouldn't be doing in the first place.

If we were to regulate the substances so someone could purchase small amounts for recreation would that solve the problem?

People will get what they're going to get. No regulation stops that. However, I'd accept attempts to regulate usage in exchange for doing away with the idea of incarcerating people that haven't hurt nor taken from another.

I think not. We loosely regulate all sorts of drugs that people still manage to abuse. If the gov't "rationed" recreational drugs, non-users could still find a black market to sell it to hardened and devoted addicts.

Agreed. But my point stands. It's wrong to put people in jail for consensual activity.

 

[Duped]

So most drug crimes would still be crimes since they steal and rob to support their habit and the dealers kill people to protect their product and routes.

Or are you suggesting the Government pay for all addicts drugs?

Stealing, and robbing victimizes - you prosecute those. Growing pot in your home, and smoking it does not! If drugs were legal you would not have all the crime associated with it. From one Marine to another - get your head out your ass gunny. Did you learn anything from prohibition? When you create a black market you establish a cornucopia of crime, and victims! Wouldn't you prefer that the country make the profits instead of the cartels?

 

[MikeK]

A person who becomes an addict can be a problem. If they have a family or others depend on them, and they're now drug addled madmen someone else (us) has to pick up the tab. When thye can no longer function, tax payers end up sustaining them. I'd be all for public funded treatment, but if they fail to become self sufficient they can starve for all I care. That's not what would happen though.

We already have addicts and alcoholics on disability as it is.

If we were to regulate the substances so someone could purchase small amounts for recreation would that solve the problem?

I think not. We loosely regulate all sorts of drugs that people still manage to abuse. If the gov't "rationed" recreational drugs, non-users could still find a black market to sell it to hardened and devoted addicts.

You need to understand that a percentage of the population consists of persons whom professional behaviorists classify as addictive personalities. These people are for some reason, probably a self-destructive psychological orientation, inclined to addiction to alcohol, drugs, or gambling, and nothing will deter them. Certainly not laws.

The U.S. has been engaged in Ronald and Nancy Reagan's utterly counterproductive escalation of Nixon's War On Drugs for three decades. The result has been the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, the creation of a menacing Law-enforcement Industrial Complex, including a veritable Gulag situation in which we have imprisoned more of our citizens than all of the world's most repressive societies combined. Yet drugs are more available today than they were when the drug war began. What does that tell you?

And while I do not intend this to offend you, it is precisely your mentality which is responsible for maintaining the corrupt and utterly counterproductive War On Drugs. It serves no interests other than those who benefit from the revenue which is wasted on it.

 

[g5000]

We regulate your hamburger. Your hamburger is legal. Right now we have completely unregulated access to cocaine. I do not do drugs. I have not done drugs in almost 15 years and more than 2000 miles from here. I guarantee that I can find and acquire cocaine tonight if I so desired (at least I could if I were in country). 15 minutes with Google can set me up with an unregulated untested whore as well.

When you legalize it THEN regulation actually becomes possible. So, in reality, you are right, unfettered access to unregulated cocaine is harmful so maybe we should STOP that practice and legalize it.

Ease of access is one of the worst arguments for legalization I have ever heard.

I can murder someone in less than 30 seconds. Right now we have completely unregulated access to murder. Should we legalize murder then?

?
I have no idea where you are going with that. It is not that I can easily access it that means it should be legal. That just means banning the substance is not effective. Murder is not illegal because I should not be able to access it, it is illegal because it is an aggressive act against another human. The two examples have nothing in common whatsoever.

You were arguing the ease with which one can commit a crime meant prevention of the crime was ineffective. The obvious implication was it should therefore not be a crime, since this is a topic about legalization of "victimless crimes".

Murder still goes on. Therefore, prevention is ineffectivce.

Effectiveness of enforcement is therefore not a supporting argument for anything. Except perhaps MORE enforcement!

Here is the fact – I CAN get the substance. That is fact. When I CHOOSE to use it, I am the ONLY one that is subject to that chemical. I have not committed an act of aggression against anyone, their property, or their rights. I have done nothing to them whatsoever. For this act, I can be forcibly detained and imprisoned for 10 years.

Can you show me ten years imprisonment is the law for using? Such punishments are reserved for dealers or mules or distributors.

Further, I have access to that product WITHOUT any governmental regulation, something that can and will exist if the product was legal.

Will regulation of heroin make it less addictive or debilitating?

No.

And since when are Libertarians wanting MORE regulations? They don't even like the FDA! They want to abolish it!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ease of access is one of the worst arguments for legalization I have ever heard.

I can murder someone in less than 30 seconds. Right now we have completely unregulated access to murder. Should we legalize murder then?

?
I have no idea where you are going with that. It is not that I can easily access it that means it should be legal. That just means banning the substance is not effective. Murder is not illegal because I should not be able to access it, it is illegal because it is an aggressive act against another human. The two examples have nothing in common whatsoever.

You were arguing the ease with which one can commit a crime meant prevention of the crime was ineffective. The obvious implication was it should therefore not be a crime, since this is a topic about legalization of "victimless crimes".

Murder still goes on. Therefore, prevention is ineffectivce.

Effectiveness of enforcement is therefore not a supporting argument for anything. Except perhaps MORE enforcement!

Here is the fact – I CAN get the substance. That is fact. When I CHOOSE to use it, I am the ONLY one that is subject to that chemical. I have not committed an act of aggression against anyone, their property, or their rights. I have done nothing to them whatsoever. For this act, I can be forcibly detained and imprisoned for 10 years.

Can you show me ten years imprisonment is the law for using? Such punishments are reserved for dealers or mules or distributors.

Further, I have access to that product WITHOUT any governmental regulation, something that can and will exist if the product was legal.

Will regulation of heroin make it less addictive or debilitating?

No.

And since when are Libertarians wanting MORE regulations? They don't even like the FDA! They want to abolish it!

Let's neg the shit out of him for circular arguing. Everyone neg him good.

 

[g5000]

?
I have no idea where you are going with that. It is not that I can easily access it that means it should be legal. That just means banning the substance is not effective. Murder is not illegal because I should not be able to access it, it is illegal because it is an aggressive act against another human. The two examples have nothing in common whatsoever.

You were arguing the ease with which one can commit a crime meant prevention of the crime was ineffective. The obvious implication was it should therefore not be a crime, since this is a topic about legalization of "victimless crimes".

Murder still goes on. Therefore, prevention is ineffectivce.

Effectiveness of enforcement is therefore not a supporting argument for anything. Except perhaps MORE enforcement!




Can you show me ten years imprisonment is the law for using? Such punishments are reserved for dealers or mules or distributors.

Further, I have access to that product WITHOUT any governmental regulation, something that can and will exist if the product was legal.

Will regulation of heroin make it less addictive or debilitating?

No.

And since when are Libertarians wanting MORE regulations? They don't even like the FDA! They want to abolish it!

Let's neg the shit out of him for circular arguing. Everyone neg him good.

Sorry to make your ass hurt.

It is revealing of your character that in the face of an argument you cannot refute, you strike out like a five year old.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It is revealing of your character that in the face of an argument you cannot refute, you strike out like a five year old.

No, we keep answering that question for you. You're intentionally derailing via Circular arguing. You keep rephrasing it and using a different strawman every other post.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

A person who becomes an addict can be a problem. If they have a family or others depend on them, and they're now drug addled madmen someone else (us) has to pick up the tab. When thye can no longer function, tax payers end up sustaining them. I'd be all for public funded treatment, but if they fail to become self sufficient they can starve for all I care. That's not what would happen though.

We already have addicts and alcoholics on disability as it is.[...]

If we compare the cost of maintaining severely dysfunctional drug addicts to the cost of the absolutely ineffective and counterproductive War On Drugs, the simple fact is taking care of the junkies is a substantial bargain.

Just give some thought to the cost of enforcing drug laws -- which have no effect on the availability of drugs: There is the cost of ordinary police, dedicated drug police (DEA, etc.), arrest processing, judges, prosecutors and court personnel, pre-trial confinements, prisons, probation and parole officers -- and don't forget the eventual cost of pensions and other benefits for all those enforcement personnel. The bottom line cost of maintaining the relatively few brokedown junkies is barely worth mentioning in comparison to the staggering cost of enforcing the unreasonable drug laws.

 

[eflatminor]

And since when are Libertarians wanting MORE regulations?

I for one am not calling for more regulations. I am calling for ending the incarceration of people that neither hurt nor took from another. Regulation of that which is legal is a different topic. Make all consensual activity between adults legal and we can debate what should and what should not be regulated.

They don't even like the FDA! They want to abolish it!

Damn straight! But again, a different topic.

 

[FA_Q2]

Ease of access is one of the worst arguments for legalization I have ever heard.

I can murder someone in less than 30 seconds. Right now we have completely unregulated access to murder. Should we legalize murder then?

?
I have no idea where you are going with that. It is not that I can easily access it that means it should be legal. That just means banning the substance is not effective. Murder is not illegal because I should not be able to access it, it is illegal because it is an aggressive act against another human. The two examples have nothing in common whatsoever.

You were arguing the ease with which one can commit a crime meant prevention of the crime was ineffective. The obvious implication was it should therefore not be a crime, since this is a topic about legalization of "victimless crimes".

Murder still goes on. Therefore, prevention is ineffectivce.

Effectiveness of enforcement is therefore not a supporting argument for anything. Except perhaps MORE enforcement!

The ease and regularity IS an indication that the prevention is ineffective. How can you aregue otherwise? Murder ‘prevention’ is quite successful as we have less than 5 people murdered out of 100000 a year. That is .0005 percent. Just because it rarely happens does not mean that it is not effective.

Now, what were the drug abuse rates BEFORE the drug war? Nothing I have ever seen suggests that the drug abuse rate has declined one bit over the last 40 years. Repeal murder laws and I can guarantee that murder will increase exponentially.

BTW – the ineffectiveness of enforcement requiring more enforcement is CLEARLY circular reasoning. The reality here is that the drug war has not only failed but has caused MORE harm than the drugs themselves. How can you advocate for that?

Here is the fact – I CAN get the substance. That is fact. When I CHOOSE to use it, I am the ONLY one that is subject to that chemical. I have not committed an act of aggression against anyone, their property, or their rights. I have done nothing to them whatsoever. For this act, I can be forcibly detained and imprisoned for 10 years.

Can you show me ten years imprisonment is the law for using? Such punishments are reserved for dealers or mules or distributors.

After looking up the law, it appears I was mistaken. 3 years is the punishment with a possible felony conviction in CA.

That does not change the fact that it would have been wrong and MORE harmful. What are the harmful effects that drug abuse causes? Bad health? Removes you from your family? Ruins your ability to care for those that you are responsible for? Destroys marriages, families and friendships? Takes away your career? All those are POSSIBLE with drugs (not necessarily going to happen but POSSIBLE). You know, those exact same things happen when you are incarcerated though they are far more likely.

So, what is the positive for keeping illicit substances illegal again?

Further, I have access to that product WITHOUT any governmental regulation, something that can and will exist if the product was legal.

Will regulation of heroin make it less addictive or debilitating?

No.

And since when are Libertarians wanting MORE regulations? They don't even like the FDA! They want to abolish it!

Yes, actually it will. You know that many deaths from drug abuse happen because they are receiving a dirty product, something FAR less likely with a legal, regulated product that someone is financially responsible for. Then there is the reality that many become hooked on a product that they actually are not aware they are taking. Pot sells a LOT better if you splice a small amount of something more addictive in it a few times. I already pointed out that we have a real experiment in legalizing a harmful substance – alcohol. Prohibition was FAR worse than legalized liquor. That is well documented. Why are you declaring that we ignore the real outcomes in favor of a drug war that has failed to curb drug use one iota.


The last part is a meaningless. I care not what you thing libertarians want. We are discussing the rationality behind removing laws punishing victimless crimes, not what libertarians want.

Let's neg the shit out of him for circular arguing. Everyone neg him good.

That would be counterproductive to getting a reasonable argument out of him. I am sure that he is capable of it but seems to lack the will atm.