Abolish Victimless Crimes:

[candycorn]

Yeah, who cares if your child's school bus driver is hooked on cocaine or crystal meth.

Private companies are free to require sobriety tests before allowing their employees to operate their machinery. And of course, the employee is free to seek work elsewhere if they don't want to comply with the test. That's consensual.

As long as they didn't wreck today...great. Who cares about tomorrow...tomorrow, afterall, is always a day away.

Think of a cogent argument and get back to us.

Meanwhile the driver is hallucinating, wrecks, kids die...and the driver gets thrown in jail because there is . now a victim. Parents are planning funerals....

By the time there are victims, its too late

Think of a sane position and get back to us.

 

[Luissa]

Yeah, who cares if your child's school bus driver is hooked on cocaine or crystal meth.

Private companies are free to require sobriety tests before allowing their employees to operate their machinery. And of course, the employee is free to seek work elsewhere if they don't want to comply with the test. That's consensual.

As long as they didn't wreck today...great. Who cares about tomorrow...tomorrow, afterall, is always a day away.

Think of a cogent argument and get back to us.

Meanwhile the driver is hallucinating, wrecks, kids die...and the driver gets thrown in jail because there is . now a victim. Parents are planning funerals....

By the time there are victims, its too late

Think of a sane position and get back to us.

Do you think alcohol should be illegal? How about narcotic prescription drugs?

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah, who cares if your child's school bus driver is hooked on cocaine or crystal meth.

Private companies are free to require sobriety tests before allowing their employees to operate their machinery. And of course, the employee is free to seek work elsewhere if they don't want to comply with the test. That's consensual.

As long as they didn't wreck today...great. Who cares about tomorrow...tomorrow, afterall, is always a day away.

Think of a cogent argument and get back to us.

Meanwhile the driver is hallucinating, wrecks, kids die...and the driver gets thrown in jail because there is . now a victim. Parents are planning funerals....

By the time there are victims, its too late

How could the driver be hallucinating if the bus company requires a sobriety check before operating their buses?

Further, what makes you think the illegality of drugs stops people from doing drugs? Have any evidence to back that up?

 

[candycorn]

Private companies are free to require sobriety tests before allowing their employees to operate their machinery. And of course, the employee is free to seek work elsewhere if they don't want to comply with the test. That's consensual.



Think of a cogent argument and get back to us.

Meanwhile the driver is hallucinating, wrecks, kids die...and the driver gets thrown in jail because there is . now a victim. Parents are planning funerals....

By the time there are victims, its too late

Think of a sane position and get back to us.

Do you think alcohol should be illegal? How about narcotic prescription drugs?

Fair question.

No, I do not think they should be illegal. In fact, I am of the opinion that we should have subjective laws concerning blood alcohol levels. I've seen incrdiby petite women drink nearly a dozen beers in one sitting and she kept most of her wits about her. You could tell she was a bit tipsy but she was highly functional. I've seen larger men drink numerous beers as well and literally pass out. It has to do with biology as much as what you ingest.

Blood alcohol levels do not translate into your capacity. It is used as a rule of thumb based on averages across large populations.

The question is threat assessment and the danger of drug X vs. drug Y. Abuse is abuse and you cannot protect against everything.

 

[Pop23]

Meanwhile the driver is hallucinating, wrecks, kids die...and the driver gets thrown in jail because there is . now a victim. Parents are planning funerals....

By the time there are victims, its too late

Think of a sane position and get back to us.

Do you think alcohol should be illegal? How about narcotic prescription drugs?

Fair question.

No, I do not think they should be illegal. In fact, I am of the opinion that we should have subjective laws concerning blood alcohol levels. I've seen incrdiby petite women drink nearly a dozen beers in one sitting and she kept most of her wits about her. You could tell she was a bit tipsy but she was highly functional. I've seen larger men drink numerous beers as well and literally pass out. It has to do with biology as much as what you ingest.

Blood alcohol levels do not translate into your capacity. It is used as a rule of thumb based on averages across large populations.

The question is threat assessment and the danger of drug X vs. drug Y. Abuse is abuse and you cannot protect against everything.

Just the ones you don't agree with? Good grief.

 

[Pop23]

Abolish Victimless Crimes

I agree. I'd like to see two simple principals applied to any and all legal situations before an adult can be charged with a crime:

1) Did the person take something that didn't belong to them?
2) Did the person harm or cause trouble...or otherwise 'mess with'...another?

If the answer is 'no' to both questions, no criminal prosecution should be allowed.

Take drunk driving for example. I say if someone causes an accident...or even just crosses a double yellow, forcing oncoming traffic to have to swerve to avoid a collision...and that person is found to be under the influence, then not only should they be charged with a driving infraction, they should be prosecuted for drunk driving. I have no problem with that.

However, the idea of random checkpoints that seek to arrest someone that has done nothing to cause even the slightest inconvenience to another is wrong. I have a big problem with that.

Lots of other examples of consensual activity between adults being considered criminal activity. It is wrong and it should be stopped. But then, I still advocate for that old and outdated idea of freedom. Crazy, I know.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Thomas Jefferson

Here is the problem with your proposal. DUI checkpoints prevent fatal drunk driving incidents. Waiting until after the collision results in a dead body.

The principle you propose is one already applied to domestic abuse and home invasions resulting in death or serious injury.

Someone calls the police "There is someone outside my house acting strangely."
"Call use back when they break in."

A woman calls the police "My ex boyfriend is outside trying to get in. I'm afraid. He beat me up before."

"Until he actually breaks in, he hasn't broken any laws and there is nothing we can do. Call us back when he actually breaks in."

Driving drunk is a crime you commit against the general public. You agree not to do so when you AGREE to accept the state issued license and use the PUBLIC street.

No one says she could not call the Police for protection against a potential threat. But him standing outside, unless there is a protection order there is no crime.

 

[candycorn]

Do you think alcohol should be illegal? How about narcotic prescription drugs?

Fair question.

No, I do not think they should be illegal. In fact, I am of the opinion that we should have subjective laws concerning blood alcohol levels. I've seen incrdiby petite women drink nearly a dozen beers in one sitting and she kept most of her wits about her. You could tell she was a bit tipsy but she was highly functional. I've seen larger men drink numerous beers as well and literally pass out. It has to do with biology as much as what you ingest.

Blood alcohol levels do not translate into your capacity. It is used as a rule of thumb based on averages across large populations.

The question is threat assessment and the danger of drug X vs. drug Y. Abuse is abuse and you cannot protect against everything.

Just the ones you don't agree with? Good grief.

Yep...I'm making the entire thing up.... hilarious.

The ones with a proven track record of incapacitating he users and making them violent. Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

 

[Pop23]

Fair question.

No, I do not think they should be illegal. In fact, I am of the opinion that we should have subjective laws concerning blood alcohol levels. I've seen incrdiby petite women drink nearly a dozen beers in one sitting and she kept most of her wits about her. You could tell she was a bit tipsy but she was highly functional. I've seen larger men drink numerous beers as well and literally pass out. It has to do with biology as much as what you ingest.

Blood alcohol levels do not translate into your capacity. It is used as a rule of thumb based on averages across large populations.

The question is threat assessment and the danger of drug X vs. drug Y. Abuse is abuse and you cannot protect against everything.

Just the ones you don't agree with? Good grief.

Yep...I'm making the entire thing up.... hilarious.

The ones with a proven track record of incapacitating he users and making them violent. Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

Which? Beer or Pot?

Ones legal and is known to cause violent behavior

Ones illegal and does not

Hmmm,mm

 

[Londoner]

Great post! Agree 100%

Big Government wants more crimes on the books so that it has more latitude to surveil, detain and incarcerate those disruptive to the status quo (and who the status quo serves). Think of the old Soviet Union as a model. Some things to consider on why so many crimes have been created.

1. Civil unrest from the Vietnam era exposed the inability of Government to handle political rebellion. More cimes and tougher policing was needed to protect those in power from the restless masses. Remember Kent State? Our policing mechanisms were simply not up to the task of preserving social order. This lead those in government, especially Republicans, to push for a much larger, stronger law enforcement tools. Governor Reagan was outspoken over the need for tougher policing to handle the political rebellions on campuses like Berkeley. This is why Reagan, once president, directed so much money and energy to beefing up federal and state law enforcement.

2. The War on Drugs proved to be a great mechanism for moving blacks from the Jim Crow era into cages, where they were less socially disruptive. Please recall America's inner cities in the 70s, which were coming apart at the seams, overrun by crime, ghettos and slums (caused in part by the inability of the system to absorb enough blacks and poor people into the labor markets). Creating more "crimes" made it easier for the state to protect the property system from superfluous populations.

3. Please also recall that the welfare system was over-burdened in the 70s. During the 80s and 90s, because of Reagan, there was a push to unwind the welfare system. This culminated with Clinton making the largest cuts to welfare in the program's history (-to be fair, this arose partly from dealmaking with Gingrich over taxes). The result of unwinding welfare programs is to put more people "on the streets". This in turn increases the need for more crimes to enable stronger policing. Again, the point of creating more crimes is to give Government more power to put politically and socially disruptive people in jail. Look at the Soviets: "find me the man and I'll show you the crime". States, as they get less free, have always protected the powerful (e.g., property owning classes) by giving law enforcement more tools to "manage" the non-powerful, non-wealthy, political dissidents, unemployed, i.e., anyone who poses a threat to those who benefit from the status quo.

The downside of giving Government so much increased power to "manage" superfluous populations is that you end up with a very powerful Government. This leads to the law of unintended consequences. Meaning: a government that is too powerful can be the worse consequence of all.

I remember when Reagan was creating the War on Drugs. I was amazed at how much surveillance and power he was creating inside the federal system. It was very clear that the government was getting ready to put huge numbers of people in cages, like we saw with the Soviets and other nations. At the end of the day, every nation will protect its property owners from those born poor, or born with the wrong skin color. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens even in free countries like ours which has done a better job than most at giving all people opportunity.

 

[candycorn]

Just the ones you don't agree with? Good grief.

Yep...I'm making the entire thing up.... hilarious.

The ones with a proven track record of incapacitating he users and making them violent. Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

Which? Beer or Pot?

Ones legal and is known to cause violent behavior

Ones illegal and does not

Hmmm,mm

Hey, I'm not saying there is not any hypocrisy in the entire thing...but gee, I'm thinking that your behavior may have consequences (eventhough you didn't mean to hurt someone when you committed the behavior) and by the time you have victims it's too late to reconsider the whole thing.

 

[eflatminor]

Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

You continue to miss the point. Shooting at someone forces one to evade that shot. This is NOT consensual activity, so the shooter should be prosecuted.

Now, if two adults want to shoot at each other on their own property without involving others, have at it.

Get it now?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

You continue to miss the point. Shooting at someone forces one to evade that shot. This is NOT consensual activity, so the shooter should be prosecuted.

Now, if two adults want to shoot at each other on their own property without involving others, have at it.

Get it now?

So I kill you on my property and claim mutually consenting shooting by adults on private lands ?

 

[FA_Q2]

Fair question.

No, I do not think they should be illegal. In fact, I am of the opinion that we should have subjective laws concerning blood alcohol levels. I've seen incrdiby petite women drink nearly a dozen beers in one sitting and she kept most of her wits about her. You could tell she was a bit tipsy but she was highly functional. I've seen larger men drink numerous beers as well and literally pass out. It has to do with biology as much as what you ingest.

Blood alcohol levels do not translate into your capacity. It is used as a rule of thumb based on averages across large populations.

The question is threat assessment and the danger of drug X vs. drug Y. Abuse is abuse and you cannot protect against everything.

Just the ones you don't agree with? Good grief.

Yep...I'm making the entire thing up.... hilarious.

The ones with a proven track record of incapacitating he users and making them violent. Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

You do realize that it has already been stated MULTIPLE times that putting people in danger IS a violation as those you put in danger ARE victims.

Firing your weapon in ANY direction around people without the proper precautions is very dangerous.

 

[eflatminor]

Hell, why not let the driver also carry a revolver and shoot it down the aisle of the school bus. As long as she doesn't hit anyone, there is no victim, afterall.

You continue to miss the point. Shooting at someone forces one to evade that shot. This is NOT consensual activity, so the shooter should be prosecuted.

Now, if two adults want to shoot at each other on their own property without involving others, have at it.

Get it now?

So I kill you on my property and claim mutually consenting shooting by adults on private lands ?

Oh for christsake! I was referring to the concept of a dual, where BOTH adults voluntarily engage in activity the neither harms nor takes from another.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So you want the ability to dual and the ability to put any drug freely in your body.

Brilliant.

 

[eflatminor]

So you want the ability to dual and the ability to put any drug freely in your body.

Brilliant.

No, I want every adult to have the ability to engage in activity that neither harms nor takes from another without fear of prosecution. Central planners DO NOT know what's best for others...either do you.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So you want the ability to dual and the ability to put any drug freely in your body.

Brilliant.

No, I want every adult to have the ability to engage in activity that neither harms nor takes from another without fear of prosecution. Central planners DO NOT know what's best for others...either do you.

Sure I / they do.

Resolving conflict through sanctioned attempted murder against each other

and the ability to gain unfettered access to any drug is not best for others.

Sure sounds all kewl and radical on the internets message board though.

 

[eflatminor]

So you want the ability to dual and the ability to put any drug freely in your body.

Brilliant.

No, I want every adult to have the ability to engage in activity that neither harms nor takes from another without fear of prosecution. Central planners DO NOT know what's best for others...either do you.

Sure I / they do.

Resolving conflict through sanctioned attempted murder against each other

and the ability to gain unfettered access to any drug is not best for others.

Sure sounds all kewl and radical on the internets message board though.

You're still missing the point. "Sanctioned" refers to authorization - official permission or approval for a course of action.

Nobody should require 'sanction' to engage in consensual activity.

Once again, you do NOT know what's best for others. If an action doesn't involve you, how about minding your own business?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Once again, you do NOT know what's best for others. If an action doesn't involve you, how about minding your own business?

So should you be able to get Propofol over the counter ?

It could help you sleep after killing your neighbor in a consensual gun battle over parking spaces.

 

[eflatminor]

Once again, you do NOT know what's best for others. If an action doesn't involve you, how about minding your own business?

So should you be able to get Propofol over the counter ?

It could help you sleep after killing your neighbor in a consensual gun battle over parking spaces.

Thank you Captain Hyperbole...