Victimless Crimes

SmarterThanYou said:
whose responsibility is it to provide/protect the family?
Click to expand...

The responsibility of the individual, not the government.

i'm hard pressed to really find where the power for governments to regulate these activities actually comes from, other than the all inclusive commerce clause, which would have every founding father firing their muskets again.
Click to expand...

The States have the power to regulate such activities as they see fit.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
only as long as that states constitution provides for it, correct?
Click to expand...

That is correct. And in most states, laws prohibiting gambling, prostitution, etc., are not unconstitutional. My point isn't that such activities should be legalized based on the constitutionality of the laws or lack thereof (although that is a valid question), but on reason.
 
Tabasco said:
That is correct. And in most states, laws prohibiting gambling, prostitution, etc., are not unconstitutional. My point isn't that such activities should be legalized based on the constitutionality of the laws or lack thereof (although that is a valid question), but on reason.
Click to expand...

so you think constitutions should be living documents?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so you think constitutions should be living documents?
Click to expand...

Not at all. However, that is not the basis of my argument. I don't care what the state constitutions have to say on the matter; these activities should be legalized regardless. (However, if any such vices are banned in a constitution of a particular state, they should follow the proper amendment procedure).
 
Tabasco said:
Not at all. However, that is not the basis of my argument. I don't care what the state constitutions have to say on the matter; these activities should be legalized regardless. (However, if any such vices are banned in a constitution of a particular state, they should follow the proper amendment procedure).
Click to expand...

Have you read Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny? It has been recommended by several people. Apparently lays out with a clear and precise understanding what the powers of government are to look like and how and why they have gone astray. Better still the book provides a clear and definite way to right the wrong of where we are.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I remember when I was a teenager on a few occasions my friends and I soliciting the help of a wino to get us some cheap alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Putting drugs into the same kind of availablity will not be hindered due to age.
Click to expand...
You seem to assume that illegal substances are currently more difficult for children to attain than substances which are regulated by age requirements. My observations and experience would say that assumption is incorrect. I do not believe legalizing recreational drugs with age limits would have a significant impact on the availability to children. My grandson says it is easier for him now to get pot than whiskey.

Legalization would allow certain regulations to be emplaced having to do with purity, standardization of strength, etc., which would go a long way in limiting accidental ODs or fatal reactions to contaminants. It would also free up several billions of dollars annually spent on enforcement of drug laws as well as be a source of additional income - some of which could be set aside for drug education/prevention programs (but NOT D.A.R.E. which really sucks.)
 
Good Luck said:
You seem to assume that illegal substances are currently more difficult for children to attain than substances which are regulated by age requirements. My observations and experience would say that assumption is incorrect. I do not believe legalizing recreational drugs with age limits would have a significant impact on the availability to children. My grandson says it is easier for him now to get pot than whiskey.

Legalization would allow certain regulations to be emplaced having to do with purity, standardization of strength, etc., which would go a long way in limiting accidental ODs or fatal reactions to contaminants. It would also free up several billions of dollars annually spent on enforcement of drug laws as well as be a source of additional income - some of which could be set aside for drug education/prevention programs (but NOT D.A.R.E. which really sucks.)
Click to expand...

Part of your assertion fails to take into account that it is easily grown, while not to many are making whiskey at home.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Part of your assertion fails to take into account that it is easily grown, while not to many are making whiskey at home.
Click to expand...
Do you have teenagers at home? If so, ask them. I'd be willing to bet that meth, crack, and others, as well as pot, are easier for them to obtain than alcohol.

The reason being there is, by necessity, an established black market for drugs, being they are not legal at any age. There is no such market for selling alcohol to minors because the profit margin vs risk just would not be high enough. Therefore, access to alcohol by minors must be through other means - the most common being simpyl stealing from parents, and second being older friends who can purchase legally. But a 21 y.o. who is willing to purchase a bottle of rum or a case of beer for their under age friends is not as likely to extend that benevolence to younger teens or pre-teens. But a drug dealer has no such compunctions.
 
Good Luck said:
Do you have teenagers at home? If so, ask them. I'd be willing to bet that meth, crack, and others, as well as pot, are easier for them to obtain than alcohol.

The reason being there is, by necessity, an established black market for drugs, being they are not legal at any age. There is no such market for selling alcohol to minors because the profit margin vs risk just would not be high enough. Therefore, access to alcohol by minors must be through other means - the most common being simpyl stealing from parents, and second being older friends who can purchase legally. But a 21 y.o. who is willing to purchase a bottle of rum or a case of beer for their under age friends is not as likely to extend that benevolence to younger teens or pre-teens. But a drug dealer has no such compunctions.
Click to expand...

So your logic is that since it's so available, that's why it should be legalized!!

DAMN, WE MIGHT AS WELL MAKE MURDER LEGAL; since it's so prevelant.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So your logic is that since it's so available, that's why it should be legalized!!

DAMN, WE MIGHT AS WELL MAKE MURDER LEGAL; since it's so prevelant.
Click to expand...
Strawman

I am countering YOUR claim that making it legal would make it MORE accessible to children, which is, supposedly, your primary objection to the legalization.

My reasons for making most recreational drugs legal have nothing to do with their availability. One reason has to do with the fact that the laws and the method of enforcement CREATES a criminal subculture that would not exist without those laws, thus subtracting from rather than addding to the security of the society. The laws create more trouble in the form of black markets and criminal organizations formed around their sale than would be created by allowing use of such substances under similar limitations as have been placed on alcohol. Our experience with the 18th Amendment showed us this basic truth which we are currently ignoring. There is no demonstrable benefit for society in the banning of recreational drug use that outweighs the costs of banning recreational drug use.

Another reason has to do with the bogus way the federal government is abusing it's power over interstate commerce in order to regulate recreational drugs. They claim the authority to regulate personal growth of marijuana without sale, even though no interstate commerce is involved. Allowing the abuse of federal authority is only asking for additional abuses in other areas - like, say, gun control. The people who granted federal authority to ban alcohol at least were conscious enough of our Constitution to do it the right way instead of subverting federal authority using a power granted for completely different purposes.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Strawman

I am countering YOUR claim that making it legal would make it MORE accessible to children, which is, supposedly, your primary objection to the legalization.

My reasons for making most recreational drugs legal have nothing to do with their availability. One reason has to do with the fact that the laws and the method of enforcement CREATES a criminal subculture that would not exist without those laws, thus subtracting from rather than addding to the security of the society. The laws create more trouble in the form of black markets and criminal organizations formed around their sale than would be created by allowing use of such substances under similar limitations as have been placed on alcohol. Our experience with the 18th Amendment showed us this basic truth which we are currently ignoring.

Another reason has to do with the bogus way the federal government is abusing it's power over interstate commerce in order to regulate recreational drugs. They claim the authority to regulate personal growth of marijuana without sale, even though no interstate commerce is involved. Allowing the abuse of federal authority is only asking for additional abuses in other areas - like, say, gun control. The people who granted federal authority to ban alcohol at least were conscious enough of our Constitution to do it the right way instead of subverting federal authority using a power granted for completely different purposes.
Click to expand...

I can agree with you; name me one criminal activity that doesn't create "a criminal subculture that would not exist without those laws".
 
Ice Dancer said:
Prostitution? I tend to agree that making it illegal has done nothing to protect society, and in fact may have made it more dangerous for those determined to practice prostitution.

Homosexuality is no longer illegal, except to be openly so in the military.

Drugs are another matter as far as I am concerned. Legalizing drugs will make them more available and accessible to children.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Drugs are far more accessible to children because we have assured that criminals are the only people who provide it, and they don't check IDs.

It was far harder to get beer than cocaine when I was in HS, to get cocaine I just had to give money to the right "friend" and I could get it for the same price as anybody else buying it. For beer I had to find somebody who was over 21 and willing to get me some beer, they would usually charge me a bit extra...

I'd prefer an age limit and very, very strong laws against purchasing for anybody who is under the age. People who are over 21 who start into drugs would be stupid anyway....
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect. Drugs are far more accessible to children because we have assured that criminals are the only people who provide it, and they don't check IDs.

It was far harder to get beer than cocaine when I was in HS, to get cocaine I just had to give money to the right "friend" and I could get it for the same price as anybody else buying it. For beer I had to find somebody who was over 21 and willing to get me some beer, they would usually charge me a bit extra...

I'd prefer an age limit and very, very strong laws against purchasing for anybody who is under the age. People who are over 21 who start into drugs would be stupid anyway....
Click to expand...

While you're correct; do you really think that drug dealers are going to quit, just because it's now legal.
Hell, there are still moonshiners.
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect. Drugs are far more accessible to children because we have assured that criminals are the only people who provide it, and they don't check IDs.

It was far harder to get beer than cocaine when I was in HS, to get cocaine I just had to give money to the right "friend" and I could get it for the same price as anybody else buying it. For beer I had to find somebody who was over 21 and willing to get me some beer, they would usually charge me a bit extra...

I'd prefer an age limit and very, very strong laws against purchasing for anybody who is under the age. People who are over 21 who start into drugs would be stupid anyway....
Click to expand...


BS- kids have no problem standing outside a store and getting someone to buy for them. Put drugs in stores and not only are they more available, they have a stamp of societal approval.
 
Last edited:
god Ice dancer and us are retarded.
It's exponentially harder for teens to get cigaretts and booze vs pot.
Put pot behind the counter and let them check id's.
As far as growing, it's way harder than you nazi tools think.
 
Topspin said:
god Ice dancer and us are retarded.
It's exponentially harder for teens to get cigaretts and booze vs pot.
Put pot behind the counter and let them check id's.
As far as growing, it's way harder than you nazi tools think.
Click to expand...

Really!!

Would you care to provide some support for your assumption regarding how hard it is for teens to acquire these items??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top