Victimless Crimes

Yes send a 16yr old redneck in your family to the local 7 eleven, closest to your trailer park and let me know how the cigs booze worked out.
 
Topspin said:
Yes send a 16yr old redneck in your family to the local 7 eleven, closest to your trailer park and let me know how the cigs booze worked out.
Click to expand...

It appears that you were responding to my post; but I'm unsure, because of your inability to click on the quote button.
But going along with what it appears to be; this would be an impossibility, as I have no 16 yearold or "rednecks" in my family, no local 7 elevens near where I live, and I don't live in a trailer park.
Since your response doesn't apply to me, it is impossible for me to answer how it would work out.

Would you care to try again??
Maybe after you've figured out that the employee DOES NOT pay for their Unemployment Inssurance.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It appears that you were responding to my post; but I'm unsure, because of your inability to click on the quote button.
But going along with what it appears to be; this would be an impossibility, as I have no 16 yearold or "rednecks" in my family, no local 7 elevens near where I live, and I don't live in a trailer park.
Since your response doesn't apply to me, it is impossible for me to answer how it would work out.

Would you care to try again??
Maybe after you've figured out that the employee DOES NOT pay for their Unemployment Inssurance.
Click to expand...

I would call you the dumbest poster on the board but southern tool and sty have you beat slightly. But you are one dumbass no doubt.
 
Topspin said:
I would call you the dumbest poster on the board but southern tool and sty have you beat slightly. But you are one dumbass no doubt.
Click to expand...

Gee what does that say about your intelligence, if a "dumbass" knows that the employee doesn't pay for his Unemployment Issurance and you don't know it??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I can agree with you; name me one criminal activity that doesn't create "a criminal subculture that would not exist without those laws".
Click to expand...
Try again. I did not name a CRIMINAL activity that created a criminal subculture. I named a GOVERNMENT activity (namely making recreational drugs illegal) that created a criminal sub culture.

Would making burglary and robbery legal eliminate the subculture of thieves? Hardly. It would simply allow thieves open access to our stuff, and no recourse on our part. Ditto any other crime of victimization you can name. Murder, assault, theft, etc. are already crimes by any societal definition; we just add a legal definition to them with our laws so as to define the methodology for prosecuting offenders and (if it weren't for liberal revolving door policies) protecting society from repeat offenses.

The same is not true for recreational drugs. Recreational drug use is not a direct threat to you or others in society the way theft and murder are. In making them illegal, we CREATE the crime of drug use. By making recreational drug use a crime, we CREATE a new criminal class - both from users and from suppliers. By creating the crime of using and selling drugs we create a black market where not would exist otherwise, with it's associated culture of violence. Again - we did it to ourselves with the 18th Amendment and undid it to ourselves with the 21st. Then we forgot our lesson and did it to ourselves again with the laws against recreational drug use. Except we did it to ourselves in a BS sneaky way by ognoring the Constitution and allowing the improper application of interstate commerce authority. But this time we aren't relearning the lesson because the so-called "war on drugs" is giving government all kinds of excuses to overstep and consolidate additional powers, taking us ever farther from the republic that was founded here not quite 221 years ago.
 
Good Luck said:
Try again. I did not name a CRIMINAL activity that created a criminal subculture. I named a GOVERNMENT activity (namely making recreational drugs illegal) that created a criminal sub culture.

Would making burglary and robbery legal eliminate the subculture of thieves? Hardly. It would simply allow thieves open access to our stuff, and no recourse on our part. Ditto any other crime of victimization you can name. Murder, assault, theft, etc. are already crimes by any societal definition; we just add a legal definition to them with our laws so as to define the methodology for prosecuting offenders and (if it weren't for liberal revolving door policies) protecting society from repeat offenses.

The same is not true for recreational drugs. Recreational drug use is not a direct threat to you or others in society the way theft and murder are. In making them illegal, we CREATE the crime of drug use. By making recreational drug use a crime, we CREATE a new criminal class - both from users and from suppliers. By creating the crime of using and selling drugs we create a black market where not would exist otherwise, with it's associated culture of violence. Again - we did it to ourselves with the 18th Amendment and undid it to ourselves with the 21st. Then we forgot our lesson and did it to ourselves again with the laws against recreational drug use. Except we did it to ourselves in a BS sneaky way by ognoring the Constitution and allowing the improper application of interstate commerce authority. But this time we aren't relearning the lesson because the so-called "war on drugs" is giving government all kinds of excuses to overstep and consolidate additional powers, taking us ever farther from the republic that was founded here not quite 221 years ago.
Click to expand...


But hasn't making burglary and theft illeagal, made a sub-culture where stolen property is sold or traded??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But hasn't making burglary and theft illeagal, made a sub-culture where stolen property is sold or traded??
Click to expand...
LOL Riiiiiight.
Think thieves would stop selling stolen goods if you make it legal? Try again, only think about it this time. The buying and selling of goods takes place whatever the laws are. Buying and selling stolen goods is included. The difference is there is a VICTIM involved, whose goods were stolen. Having a victim makes the act of theft, sociologically, a "crime" whether we define it in our laws or not. Defining laws are what allow society to deal with sociologically defined crimes (ie: those that involve a victim), and obtain justice as best as possible for the victims without resorting to the chaos of pure individual vigilantism. Since the system is imperfect, and always will be imperfect, some allowance for self defense is still needed, but not as vigilantism. You can defend yourself and your property, but you cannot go and hunt down a criminal post event, to take your retribution out later.

In a legal drug trade there are no victims, there are only sellers and customers. Since there are no victims in the exchange, there is, sociologically, no crime involved. It is only because we DEFINE the act illegal through legal code that it CREATES a crime out of non-criminal activity. Make the act of selling drugs a crime, then only criminals will sell drugs - people willing to ignore the law for their own benefit. People of that type will also be willing to break other laws as needed. Criminals will fight criminals in levels of violence law abiding citizens would never willingly get involved in. Innocent people get caught in the middle and die in wars over who gets to sell what on which street corner. Law enforcement authority is taken away from sociological crimes in order to fight a created crime. LEOs get kiiled. Drug dealers get killed. Innocents get killed. An entire culture of crime, violence, and death is created that would NOT otherwise exist based on the creation of a victimless crime. With sociological crimes there are victims whether the law defines the crime or not. With victimless crimes, the laws end up creating victims.

People who sell illegal drugs are going to sell to anyone they can. They are already breaking the law, you think they will pay any attention to age groups? While there are those willing to buy alcohol and cigarettes for minors, they are far, far fewer than drug dealers because the act of buying alcohol or cigarettes is not profitable - maybe a buck or two here and there, and/or a "feel good" of defiance against age limit laws you may not agree with. But in general the reward is not worth the risk, so most will not do it, not even criminal types otherwise willing to break the law. Breaking the law involves risk, and the rewards for the risk must outweight the risk in the criminal's mind. $20 profit to buy a bunch of kids a 5th of Jack isn't that profitable for risking a year or so in jail. The would-be criminal isn't going to find all that many kids willing to pay the extra $20. But illegal drugs command $20 profit (or more) per deal, and the number of potential deals is 100s of times greater because the criminal can gain that same profit from selling to adults as children. That makes selling illegal drugs worth the risks, where selling age limited substances to minors is not.

Make recreational drugs legal, but age limited, and you'll have the same constraints that currently exist with alcohol. Most criminals will not think the reward of selling to minors worth the risk because the potential clientele would not be large enough to make the kinds of money needed. There may be moonshiners out there, but how many? It isn't anywhere near the prevalence of the illegal drug trade because there simply is not that much extra profit to be made by avoiding federal alcohol taxes.

I think if you examine the issue more closely, and be willing to shed some of your preconceptions and prejudices, you would find that the data available indicates that drug availability to children would, in fact, diminish by legalizing and regulating recreational drugs instead of making them outright illegal. Legalization would vastly diminish the reward/risk ratio of the illicit drug trade just as repealing the 18th Amendment diminished the reward/risk ratio of the illicit alcohol trade, which resulted in a collapse of the beer wars and organized crime wave surrounding illegal alcohol.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
LOL Riiiiiight.
Think thieves would stop selling stolen goods if you make it legal? Try again, only think about it this time. The buying and selling of goods takes place whatever the laws are. Buying and selling stolen goods is included. The difference is there is a VICTIM involved, whose goods were stolen. Having a victim makes the act of theft, sociologically, a "crime" whether we define it in our laws or not. Defining laws are what allow society to deal with sociologically defined crimes (ie: those that involve a victim), and obtain justice as best as possible for the victims without resorting to the chaos of pure individual vigilantism. Since the system is imperfect, and always will be imperfect, some allowance for self defense is still needed, but not as vigilantism. You can defend yourself and your property, but you cannot go and hunt down a criminal post event, to take your retribution out later.

In a legal drug trade there are no victims, there are only sellers and customers. Since there are no victims in the exchange, there is, sociologically, no crime involved. It is only because we DEFINE the act illegal through legal code that it CREATES a crime out of non-criminal activity. Make the act of selling drugs a crime, then only criminals will sell drugs - people willing to ignore the law for their own benefit. People of that type will also be willing to break other laws as needed. Criminals will fight criminals in levels of violence law abiding citizens would never willingly get involved in. Innocent people get caught in the middle and die in wars over who gets to sell what on which street corner. Law enforcement authority is taken away from sociological crimes in order to fight a created crime. LEOs get kiiled. Drug dealers get killed. Innocents get killed. An entire culture of crime, violence, and death is created that would NOT otherwise exist based on the creation of a victimless crime. With sociological crimes there are victims whether the law defines the crime or not. With victimless crimes, the laws end up creating victims.

People who sell illegal drugs are going to sell to anyone they can. They are already breaking the law, you think they will pay any attention to age groups? While there are those willing to buy alcohol and cigarettes for minors, they are far, far fewer than drug dealers because the act of buying alcohol or cigarettes is not profitable - maybe a buck or two here and there, and/or a "feel good" of defiance against age limit laws you may not agree with. But in general the reward is not worth the risk, so most will not do it, not even criminal types otherwise willing to break the law. Breaking the law involves risk, and the rewards for the risk must outweight the risk in the criminal's mind. $20 profit to buy a bunch of kids a 5th of Jack isn't that profitable for risking a year or so in jail. The would-be criminal isn't going to find all that many kids willing to pay the extra $20. But illegal drugs command $20 profit (or more) per deal, and the number of potential deals is 100s of times greater because the criminal can gain that same profit from selling to adults as children. That makes selling illegal drugs worth the risks, where selling age limited substances to minors is not.

Make recreational drugs legal, but age limited, and you'll have the same constraints that currently exist with alcohol. Most criminals will not think the reward of selling to minors worth the risk because the potential clientele would not be large enough to make the kinds of money needed. There may be moonshiners out there, but how many? It isn't anywhere near the prevalence of the illegal drug trade because there simply is not that much extra profit to be made by avoiding federal alcohol taxes.

I think if you examine the issue more closely, and be willing to shed some of your preconceptions and prejudices, you would find that the data available indicates that drug availability to children would, in fact, diminish by legalizing and regulating recreational drugs instead of making them outright illegal. Legalization would vastly diminish the reward/risk ratio of the illicit drug trade just as repealing the 18th Amendment diminished the reward/risk ratio of the illicit alcohol trade, which resulted in a collapse of the beer wars and organized crime wave surrounding illegal alcohol.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't making theft and burglary legal, do away with anyone buying stolen property??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But wouldn't making theft and burglary legal, do away with anyone buying stolen property??
Click to expand...
Oh, come on! Are you bored? Because I really don't think your are this stupid.

If theft were legal, it would still be theft. If someone were to steal something from you, it would be theft. Whatever the thief takes from you are stolen goods. If it were legal all that would mean is you'd have no criminal justice system available to you to find the thief, prosecute them, and possibly get your property back.

If the thief sells what he stole from you, he is still selling stolen goods even if doing so were legal. Being legal, you'd have no legal recourse against those who deal in stolen goods, but they'd still be dealing in stolen goods BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN! Legality has nothing to do with them being stolen.
 
Good Luck said:
Oh, come on! Are you bored? Because I really don't think your are this stupid.

If theft were legal, it would still be theft. If someone were to steal something from you, it would be theft. Whatever the thief takes from you are stolen goods. If it were legal all that would mean is you'd have no criminal justice system available to you to find the thief, prosecute them, and possibly get your property back.

If the thief sells what he stole from you, he is still selling stolen goods even if doing so were legal. Being legal, you'd have no legal recourse against those who deal in stolen goods, but they'd still be dealing in stolen goods BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN! Legality has nothing to do with them being stolen.
Click to expand...

UH-UH-UH :nono:

If it was legal, then it wouldn't be THEFT.
It would probably be called REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!! :readit:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
UH-UH-UH :nono:

If it was legal, then it wouldn't be THEFT.
It would probably be called REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!! :readit:
Click to expand...
Shit by any other name still stinks.

And you know they aren't even be honest enough to call it "Redistribution of Wealth" It's "Reasonably progressive taxation." It still stinks, and any taxation beyond the minimums needed for the constitutional duties of government is theft.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is the legalization of victimless crimes, not what the government does to us in the name of "social justice".
 
Good Luck said:
Shit by any other name still stinks.

And you know they aren't even be honest enough to call it "Redistribution of Wealth" It's "Reasonably progressive taxation." It still stinks, and any taxation beyond the minimums needed for the constitutional duties of government is theft.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is the legalization of victimless crimes, not what the government does to us in the name of "social justice".
Click to expand...


But they're not "victimless".
Just like alcohol addiction isn't victimless.
People are not islands and what they do have a ripple affect on those aroiund the person.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But they're not "victimless".
Just like alcohol addiction isn't victimless.
People are not islands and what they do have a ripple affect on those aroiund the person.
Click to expand...
What, now you're going to blame addiction on the suppliers?

Because unless that is your stance, then addiction or not, selling mind altering substances is a victimless action. Addicts are the "victim" of their OWN choices. More people manage to maintain control of their usage than do not.

You want to start talking about regulating peoples' actions based on ripple effects, where does it end? Shall we limit the amount of electricity a person can use in a year so we don't burn too much coal? Shall we limit the number of bean burritos one can eat so their flatulence does not bother others on the bus?

If you want to be safe from the various troubles of the world, dig yourself a nice deep hole and pull a big rock in after you to seal it up. But regulating peoples' lives based on "ripple effects" is not an avenue worth exploring, as absolute despotism lies at the far end - and loss of freedoms starts at the head of the trail.
 
Good Luck said:
What, now you're going to blame addiction on the suppliers?

Because unless that is your stance, then addiction or not, selling mind altering substances is a victimless action. Addicts are the "victim" of their OWN choices. More people manage to maintain control of their usage than do not.

You want to start talking about regulating peoples' actions based on ripple effects, where does it end? Shall we limit the amount of electricity a person can use in a year so we don't burn too much coal? Shall we limit the number of bean burritos one can eat so their flatulence does not bother others on the bus?

If you want to be safe from the various troubles of the world, dig yourself a nice deep hole and pull a big rock in after you to seal it up. But regulating peoples' lives based on "ripple effects" is not an avenue worth exploring, as absolute despotism lies at the far end - and loss of freedoms starts at the head of the trail.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that the only victim, is the person using??

We were having a pretty exchange, until you decided to spin this into your post about electrcity and bean burritos; which have absolutely nothing to do with either of our comments.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you suggesting that the only victim, is the person using??

We were having a pretty exchange, until you decided to spin this into your post about electrcity and bean burritos; which have absolutely nothing to do with either of our comments.
Click to expand...
I am saying that any "victimization" in the issue of alcohol or drug addiction is the individual victimizing themselves through poor decisions. The case of tobacco companies deliberately enhancing the addictive properties of their products provides the usual gray area that always exists when talking about the issue of personal responsibility, but in general it is the individual's own decisions that get them addicted. If you do it to yourself, there really isn't a victim.

However, when you add in the factor of making substances illegal, then all kinds of victims pop up from the criminal culture that surrounds the creation of a very high profit black market.

My comments about electricity and beans (one semi-serious example, one not) was to point out that using the excuse of "ripple effects" of an individual's actions to regulate society does not hold up to inspection. While no-one lives in a vacuum who is part of a society, regulating ripple effects to assure some unrealistic concept of perfect societal justice can only end up being hopelessly repressive.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
I am saying that any "victimization" in the issue of alcohol or drug addiction is the individual victimizing themselves through poor decisions. The case of tobacco companies deliberately enhancing the addictive properties of their products provides the usual gray area that always exists when talking about the issue of personal responsibility, but in general it is the individual's own decisions that get them addicted. If you do it to yourself, there really isn't a victim.

However, when you add in the factor of making substances illegal, then all kinds of victims pop up from the criminal culture that surrounds the creation of a very high profit black market.

My comments about electricity and beans (one semi-serious example, one not) was to point out that using the excuse of "ripple effects" of an individual's actions to regulate society does not hold up to inspection. While no-one lives in a vacuum who is part of a society, regulating ripple effects to assure some unrealistic concept of perfect societal justice can only end up being hopelessly repressive.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about a perfect societal justice; nor did I suggest of insinuate such.

You seem to be suggesting that the alcohol abuser or drug user's behavior, only affects themself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top