Do you believe that a person can commit a crime against one's own self?

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for thegerg
#51 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -

Killing someone takes a toll on the mental self. I suppose that could be considered a crime. The moral grey area on that one, however ambiguous, is rather large.

edgewalker16
Killing another can be a crime. Taking "toll on the mental self" can't.
Avatar image for MrPraline
#52 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
Victimless crimes should all be legal, so should all drugs and substances
Avatar image for TrainerCeleste
#53 Posted by TrainerCeleste (1633 posts) -
When you really look at it, a law against a person using a certain substance is saying that they are committing a crime against their self. How is that possible? How can you have free will and have laws saying that it's a crime to use drugs? Now, if someone gets drunk or high and commits a crime against someone else while under the influence, they are obviously responsible for their actions.hartsickdiscipl
I think it should stay illegal because of this, people are going to do it anyway and honestly I don't care if you wish to harm yourself. The moment I have issues with it would be when the possibility that they can harm someone else comes into play. I don't have extensive knowledge about the substance you mentioned but perhaps under the influence of it they can harm someone. Because of that I don't really support it. Aside from that I hate the smell, if it was legal I'd be seeing it even MORE than I already do.
Avatar image for thegerg
#54 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
Victimless crimes should all be legal, so should all drugs and substancesMrPraline
How in the hell can a crime be legal?
Avatar image for tenaka2
#55 Posted by tenaka2 (17052 posts) -

The question is simple-

Can a person commit a crime against themselves? I'm specifically targeting laws against using certain substances, like marijuana, for example. A crime needs to have a victim. I don't personally use pot or any other illegal substances, but I defend the right of others to do so. When you really look at it, a law against a person using a certain substance is saying that they are committing a crime against their self. How is that possible? How can you have free will and have laws saying that it's a crime to use drugs? Now, if someone gets drunk or high and commits a crime against someone else while under the influence, they are obviously responsible for their actions. The using of the drugs themselves can't be a crime in my view. It just can't be if we're in a free society.

What do you think?

hartsickdiscipl

obviously yes, if a person decides to graft weapons onto their limbs, it is a crime.

Avatar image for pie-junior
#56 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -

A crime needs to have a victim.

hartsickdiscipl

No, it doesn't

Avatar image for The__Kraken
#57 Posted by The__Kraken (858 posts) -

Yes. I have robbed myself blind on multiple occasions.

Avatar image for MrPraline
#58 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Victimless crimes should all be legal, so should all drugs and substancesthegerg
How in the hell can a crime be legal?

forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised
Avatar image for thegerg
#59 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]Victimless crimes should all be legal, so should all drugs and substancesMrPraline
How in the hell can a crime be legal?

forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

Well, there is where you're wrong. Those crimes are, in fact, crimes.
Avatar image for pie-junior
#60 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]Victimless crimes should all be legal, so should all drugs and substancesMrPraline
How in the hell can a crime be legal?

forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.
Avatar image for MrPraline
#61 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] How in the hell can a crime be legal?

forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

Well, there is where you're wrong. Those crimes are, in fact, crimes.

jesus christ you are being pedantic tonight you already know what I meant, but just for you gergy boy: they SHOULDN'T be crimes "in my opinion"
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#62 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30071 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] How in the hell can a crime be legal?pie-junior
forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

Eh, are those really victimless though?

Avatar image for MrPraline
#63 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] How in the hell can a crime be legal?

forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

I'm not convinced those could be considered victimless. Classic example of victimless crime, and what I was mostly arguing about, is drug use.
Avatar image for thegerg
#64 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalisedMrPraline
What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

I'm not convinced those could be considered victimless. Classic example of victimless crime, and what I was mostly arguing about, is drug use.

In what way is speeding not victim-less?

Avatar image for pie-junior
#65 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalisedAljosa23

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

Eh, are those really victimless though?

yea, because they don't need an actual outcome, just an act or an attempt at an act. If I jaywalk and nobody gets hurt, that's a victimless crime. you could make the argument that the victim is the public, or people suffering from an increased risk as a result of the said act- but then you could make the claim that drug use isn't a victimless crime.
Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#66 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] How in the hell can a crime be legal?pie-junior
forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

I don't think traffic offenses are considered "crimes", they're offenses. And how does tax evasion, voter fraud, and illegaly bypassing corporate regulation not have a victim?

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#67 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30071 posts) -

yea, because they don't need an actual outcome, just an act or an attempt at an act. If I jaywalk and nobody gets hurt, that's a victimless crime. you could make the argument that the victim is the public, or people suffering from an increased risk as a result of the said act- but then you could make the claim that drug use isn't a victimless crime.pie-junior
Yeah when you narrow it down like that sure, it's not "victimless" and you probably wouldn't even be convicted for anything.

I also think that drug use isn't a victimless crime.

Avatar image for MrPraline
#68 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.thegerg

I'm not convinced those could be considered victimless. Classic example of victimless crime, and what I was mostly arguing about, is drug use.

In what way is speeding not victim-less?

oh, you consider speeding a traffic offense, I was expecting something serious
Avatar image for thegerg
#69 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalisedSpartanMSU

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

I don't think traffic offenses are considered "crimes", they're offenses. And how does tax evasion, voter fraud, and illegaly bypassing corporate regulation not have a victim?

It depends where you are, many traffic offenses are crimes in many places. Simply because something is an offense doesn't mean it's not criminal.
Avatar image for thegerg
#70 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] I'm not convinced those could be considered victimless. Classic example of victimless crime, and what I was mostly arguing about, is drug use.MrPraline

In what way is speeding not victim-less?

oh, you consider speeding a traffic offense, I was expecting something serious

Of course I consider speeding a traffic offense. Because, well, it is a traffic offense. Did you not know that?
Avatar image for TrainerCeleste
#71 Posted by TrainerCeleste (1633 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="pie-junior"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] forgot the quotation marks here victimless " crimes" are not crimes and should not be not giving your obama such an erection and should not be illegal or criminalised

What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.

I'm not convinced those could be considered victimless. Classic example of victimless crime, and what I was mostly arguing about, is drug use.

In the same way traffic offenses have the possibility of having someone get hurt, thus why it is illegal. It can be victimless, it also can cause someone injury. Drug use, could end up with someone else being hurt by the abuser as well, thus why I think it should remain illegal. On another thread someone is getting accused of murder (Mcaffee or however you spell his name) and wouldn't you know it, hes on bath salts :D I respect your opinion though, on some aspects I don't see a problem with it :) But I don't trust everyone to be responsible with it. Having the substances be illegal forces people to be careful with where and how they use them. For my opinion though I'd rather it remain illegal, so that people do it private where they can not hurt others. True if it's legal they can still do it privately, but if like I said it would make easier for more people to abuse it in a bad abusive way :P
Avatar image for pie-junior
#72 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
I don't think traffic offenses are considered "crimes", their offenses.SpartanMSU
They initiate state sanctions- at the very least they are 'crimes' in the general sense, that they have a connection to criminal law. in any manner, moste traffic 'offences' are undoubtedly criminal (see DUIs).
And how does tax evasion, voter fraud, and illegaly bypassing corporate regulation not have a victim?SpartanMSU
Who are the victims?
Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#73 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="pie-junior"] What about traffic offences? what about tax evasion? what about voter fraud? what about bypassing corporate regulation? i'm pretty happy having those criminalised.TrainerCeleste
I'm not convinced those could be considered victimless. Classic example of victimless crime, and what I was mostly arguing about, is drug use.

In the same way traffic offenses have the possibility of having someone get hurt, thus why it is illegal. It can be victimless, it also can cause someone injury. Drug use, could end up with someone else being hurt by the abuser as well, thus why I think it should remain illegal. On another thread someone is getting accused of murder (Mcaffee or however you spell his name) and wouldn't you know it, hes on bath salts :D I respect your opinion though, on some aspects I don't see a problem with it :) But I don't trust everyone to be responsible with it. Having the substances be illegal forces people to be careful with where and how they use them. For my opinion though I'd rather it remain illegal, so that people do it private where they can not hurt others. True if it's legal they can still do it privately, but if like I said it would make easier for more people to abuse it in a bad abusive way :P

A butter knife could end up with someone else being hurt by the abuser as well. Just about anything can.

Avatar image for MrPraline
#74 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] In what way is speeding not victim-less?thegerg
oh, you consider speeding a traffic offense, I was expecting something serious

Of course I consider speeding a traffic offense. Because, well, it is a traffic offense. Did you not know that?

Haha, you're one of those illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types. I guessed so. I'm still not sure what speeding has to do with a "crime", not to mention a victimless crime, but alright
Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#75 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]I don't think traffic offenses are considered "crimes", their offenses.pie-junior
They initiate state sanctions- at the very least they are 'crimes' in the general sense, that they have a connection to criminal law. in any manner, moste traffic 'offences' are undoubtedly criminal (see DUIs).
And how does tax evasion, voter fraud, and illegaly bypassing corporate regulation not have a victim?SpartanMSU
Who are the victims?

V

Tax evasion- taxpayers, the government

Voter fraud- Voters, citizens, politicians, government to name a few

Bypassing corporate regulation- law abiding corporations, consumers, other producers, etc

Avatar image for pie-junior
#76 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
so you mean 'crime' in a moral sense?
Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#77 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

so you mean 'crime' in a moral sense?pie-junior

No, not at all.

Avatar image for thegerg
#78 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] oh, you consider speeding a traffic offense, I was expecting something serious

Of course I consider speeding a traffic offense. Because, well, it is a traffic offense. Did you not know that?

Haha, you're one of those illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types. I guessed so. I'm still not sure what speeding has to do with a "crime", not to mention a victimless crime, but alright

You seem to be very confused. I am not one of those "illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types." Speeding can, many times be a crime. Speeding has no victim. Why is ths so confusing to you?
Avatar image for pie-junior
#79 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -

V

Tax evasion- taxpayers, the government

Voter fraud- Voters, citizens, politicians, government to name a few

Bypassing corporate regulation- law abiding corporations, consumers, other producers, etc

SpartanMSU

There aren't, necessarily, suffering 'victims'. The voter fraud could be ineffective/w/o influence; bypassing corporate regulation doesn't necessarily hurt consumers or business rivals; and tax evasion most likely never affects anyone.

* If you want to include the state, the public or society as possible victims- then there can't be any victimless crimes, since criminal laws are put in place (like every other law) for rationales dealing with the benefit of society.

Avatar image for MrPraline
#80 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Of course I consider speeding a traffic offense. Because, well, it is a traffic offense. Did you not know that?

Haha, you're one of those illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types. I guessed so. I'm still not sure what speeding has to do with a "crime", not to mention a victimless crime, but alright

You seem to be very confused. I am not one of those "illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types." Speeding can, many times be a crime. Speeding has no victim. Why is ths so confusing to you?

You seem to be very autistic.
Avatar image for thegerg
#81 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] Haha, you're one of those illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types. I guessed so. I'm still not sure what speeding has to do with a "crime", not to mention a victimless crime, but alright

You seem to be very confused. I am not one of those "illegal = wrong and befehl ist befehl types." Speeding can, many times be a crime. Speeding has no victim. Why is ths so confusing to you?

You seem to be very autistic.

No, you must be confused. Can you really not understand what speeding (which can be a criminal act with no victims) has to do with a discussion of victim-less crime?
Avatar image for slimjimbadboy
#82 Posted by slimjimbadboy (1731 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Only suicide could apply.UglyDude_07
They gone lock me up if I commit suicide?

Attempted murder still gets jail or ward time yes.

Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#83 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

V

Tax evasion- taxpayers, the government

Voter fraud- Voters, citizens, politicians, government to name a few

Bypassing corporate regulation- law abiding corporations, consumers, other producers, etc

pie-junior

There aren't, necessarily, suffering 'victims'. The voter fraud could be ineffective/w/o influence; bypassing corporate regulation doesn't necessarily hurt consumers or business rivals; and tax evasion most likely never affects anyone.

* If you want to include the state, the public or society as possible victims- then there can't be any victimless crimes, since criminal laws are put in place (like every other law) for rationales dealing with the benefit of society.

Define "suffering" victims.

Bypassing corporate regluation does have in impact on business rivals...I hope you're joking...

Tax evasion affects the government and taxpayers...how can it not?

Avatar image for thegerg
#84 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

V

Tax evasion- taxpayers, the government

Voter fraud- Voters, citizens, politicians, government to name a few

Bypassing corporate regulation- law abiding corporations, consumers, other producers, etc

SpartanMSU

There aren't, necessarily, suffering 'victims'. The voter fraud could be ineffective/w/o influence; bypassing corporate regulation doesn't necessarily hurt consumers or business rivals; and tax evasion most likely never affects anyone.

* If you want to include the state, the public or society as possible victims- then there can't be any victimless crimes, since criminal laws are put in place (like every other law) for rationales dealing with the benefit of society.

Define "suffering" victims.

Bypassing corporate regluation does have in impact on business rivals...I hope you're joking...

Tax evasion affects the government and taxpayers...how can it not?

Is someone a victim simply because they are affected by something, though?
Avatar image for pie-junior
#85 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -

Define "suffering" victims.

Bypassing corporate regluation does have in impact on business rivals...I hope you're joking...

Tax evasion affects the government and taxpayers...how can it not?

SpartanMSU

Bypassing corporate regulation does not necessarily have an impact on business rivals. bypassing corportae regulation could be something along the lines of a majority shareholder not getting the proper clearance from the general shareholder assembly to a move, which is obviously very beneficial to the company. in this instance, nobody gets hurt.

Tax evasion is usually too miniscule to affect anybody. People become affected by it when many people do it.

Avatar image for thegerg
#86 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
so you mean 'crime' in a moral sense?pie-junior
No, we're talking about crimes in a criminal sense.
Avatar image for l4dak47
#87 Posted by l4dak47 (6838 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]yea, because they don't need an actual outcome, just an act or an attempt at an act. If I jaywalk and nobody gets hurt, that's a victimless crime. you could make the argument that the victim is the public, or people suffering from an increased risk as a result of the said act- but then you could make the claim that drug use isn't a victimless crime.Aljosa23

Yeah when you narrow it down like that sure, it's not "victimless" and you probably wouldn't even be convicted for anything.

I also think that drug use isn't a victimless crime.

What makes you say that wrt to drug use?
Avatar image for tocool340
#88 Posted by tocool340 (21137 posts) -
Isn't that called suicide or attempted suicide?....
Avatar image for gameboy343
#89 Posted by gameboy343 (1024 posts) -

Suicide is illegal and it's usually done to oneself.NiKva

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#90 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="NiKva"]Suicide is illegal and it's usually done to oneself.mccoyca112

Suicide is not illegal in the same sense as committing a crime..

He has the right idea though..

A failed attempt that is caught in the act can put you in temporary cuffs, and have you sent in for mandatory observation. In other words, taking your right away. You have to sneak it, or be damn sure you're going to be successful.

That is in NO way the same thing.. That is meant for YOUR protection while committing a crime is a punitive action to repay society.. Furthermore people seem to forget the fact that there is more than just using the drug, especially when it comes to harder drugs.. Harder drugs quite often are controlled by dangerous drug dealers, cartels and gangs.. Which your addiction is in fact bank rolling them.. Its much like possessing and watching child pornography.. You may not have committed the crime, but you are supplying the demand to continue the abuse of the said children.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#91 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="NiKva"]Suicide is illegal and it's usually done to oneself.gameboy343

Except suicide is not illegal.. Your not charged with a crime with a botched attempt, your put into protective care and observation for your own protection..
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#92 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

A crime needs to have a victim.

pie-junior

No, it doesn't

By current legal standards, you are correct. By common sense, you (and the law) are wrong. No harm, no foul. How can there be a crime without a victim? By crime I mean harm.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#93 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

A crime needs to have a victim.

hartsickdiscipl

No, it doesn't

By current legal standards, you are correct. By common sense, you (and the law) are wrong. No harm, no foul. How can there be a crime without a victim? By crime I mean harm.

That depends on how you look at it.. If your scoring cocaine from the local drug dealer, your bankrolling violent drug cartels and gangs that kill people all the time..
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#94 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

No, it doesn't

sSubZerOo

By current legal standards, you are correct. By common sense, you (and the law) are wrong. No harm, no foul. How can there be a crime without a victim? By crime I mean harm.

That depends on how you look at it.. If your scoring cocaine from the local drug dealer, your bankrolling violent drug cartels and gangs that kill people all the time..

That's a circular argument. Cartels are generally violent because their activities are illegal. They have to run their businesses that way because they have been branded as evil.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#95 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

By current legal standards, you are correct. By common sense, you (and the law) are wrong. No harm, no foul. How can there be a crime without a victim? By crime I mean harm.

hartsickdiscipl

That depends on how you look at it.. If your scoring cocaine from the local drug dealer, your bankrolling violent drug cartels and gangs that kill people all the time..

That's a circular argument. Cartels are generally violent because their activities are illegal. They have to run their businesses that way because they have been branded as evil.

:| That would be the case but this is on a international level, it wouldn't make a difference if drugs were legal in the US.. They are not in their home countries and the neighboring countries.. So we still have the same problem at hand..

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#96 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] That depends on how you look at it.. If your scoring cocaine from the local drug dealer, your bankrolling violent drug cartels and gangs that kill people all the time.. sSubZerOo

That's a circular argument. Cartels are generally violent because their activities are illegal. They have to run their businesses that way because they have been branded as evil.

:| That would be the case but this is on a international level, it wouldn't make a difference if drugs were legal in the US.. They are not in their home countries and the neighboring countries.. So we still have the same problem at hand..

I wasn't limiting my proposed legislation to just the US. Obviously in the real world it would be done on a country by country basis. The bottom line is this- The US is a massive, thriving market for illegal substances which come from foreign and domestic sources. If the US relented on their strict drug laws, it would have a huge effect on the way that Mexican cartels operate, for example.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#97 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That's a circular argument. Cartels are generally violent because their activities are illegal. They have to run their businesses that way because they have been branded as evil.

hartsickdiscipl

:| That would be the case but this is on a international level, it wouldn't make a difference if drugs were legal in the US.. They are not in their home countries and the neighboring countries.. So we still have the same problem at hand..

I wasn't limiting my proposed legislation to just the US. Obviously in the real world it would be done on a country by country basis. The bottom line is this- The US is a massive, thriving market for illegal substances which come from foreign and domestic sources. If the US relented on their strict drug laws, it would have a huge effect on the way that Mexican cartels operate, for example.

Not within their own countries though....
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#98 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| That would be the case but this is on a international level, it wouldn't make a difference if drugs were legal in the US.. They are not in their home countries and the neighboring countries.. So we still have the same problem at hand..

sSubZerOo

I wasn't limiting my proposed legislation to just the US. Obviously in the real world it would be done on a country by country basis. The bottom line is this- The US is a massive, thriving market for illegal substances which come from foreign and domestic sources. If the US relented on their strict drug laws, it would have a huge effect on the way that Mexican cartels operate, for example.

Not within their own countries though....

Sure it would. They wouldn't have US-sanctioned gun-running operations invading their countries.

Avatar image for thegerg
#99 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

A crime needs to have a victim.

hartsickdiscipl

No, it doesn't

By current legal standards, you are correct. By common sense, you (and the law) are wrong. No harm, no foul. How can there be a crime without a victim? By crime I mean harm.

"By common sense, you (and the law) are wrong"

So are you suggesting that I should be lawfully allowed to drive drunk, at 80mph, through a school zone, while firing my pistol out of the window as long as I don't hurt anyone?

"By crime I mean harm."

Well then you mean the wrong thing. That's not what that word means.

Avatar image for thegerg
#100 Posted by thegerg (18284 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| That would be the case but this is on a international level, it wouldn't make a difference if drugs were legal in the US.. They are not in their home countries and the neighboring countries.. So we still have the same problem at hand..

sSubZerOo

I wasn't limiting my proposed legislation to just the US. Obviously in the real world it would be done on a country by country basis. The bottom line is this- The US is a massive, thriving market for illegal substances which come from foreign and domestic sources. If the US relented on their strict drug laws, it would have a huge effect on the way that Mexican cartels operate, for example.

Not within their own countries though....

Yes, it would. If the market for their illicit drugs was eliminated they would go out of business.