Poll: Victimless crime.

[DazBurger]

One may counter by saying that alcohol is more damaging.
They simply dont know what they talk about :/

Or they present you with evidence and you just say "but I've seen it happen!".

What about presenting your evidence before telling me how I should react?

 

[DazZ.]

One may counter by saying that alcohol is more damaging.
They simply dont know what they talk about :/

Or they present you with evidence and you just say "but I've seen it happen!".

What about presenting your evidence before telling me how I should react?

I said "they" not "I", nor anything about how you should react.

 

[Marmooset]

my question is simple; is there any such thing?

Disintegrating someone.
After I'm done, there's no victim.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I
One may counter by saying that alcohol is more damaging.
They simply dont know what they talk about :/

That's interesting, considering the fact that the british, peer reviewed, medical journal "The Lancet" published an article claiming that alcohol scored overall higher on the chart of both immediate physical harm to the users body AND higher physical addiction rate than cannabis.

But I guess those stupid doctors and scientists with their silly medical experiments don't know anything, now do they?

*facepalm*

 

[likalaruku]

Anyone heard about that 12 year old girl who was dragged off in handcuffs for writing "I love my friends" on her desk with a dry erase marker?

What about the guy who had a swat team kick his door in for not mowing his lawn?

The 11 year old girl who was arrested for walking out of a Smiths with an unpaid birthday card? (okey, that one was me).

 

[Marmooset]

Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.

"If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose."

 

[DazBurger]

One may counter by saying that alcohol is more damaging.
They simply dont know what they talk about :/

Or they present you with evidence and you just say "but I've seen it happen!".

What about presenting your evidence before telling me how I should react?

I said "they" not "I", nor anything about how you should react.

I would say the same thing if someone presented to me, a proof of the existence of God.
I would read it thoroughly, check its sources, double check and only then if it seemed to be correct, I would step down, admit me being wrong and eat my hat. (Not that I have one)



But untill I see that conclusive "proof" I will continue to regard it as wishfull thinking.




-

I
One may counter by saying that alcohol is more damaging.
They simply dont know what they talk about :/

That's interesting, considering the fact that the british, peer reviewed, medical journal "The Lancet" published an article claiming that alcohol scored overall higher on the chart of both immediate physical harm to the users body AND higher physical addiction rate than cannabis.

But I guess those stupid doctors and scientists with their silly medical experiments don't know anything, now do they?

*facepalm*

Source?

 

[Yureina]

Its only a victimless crime if nobody is a victim in some way, but especially that not people aside from the offender are not victims. By that definition, that is a rather narrow list, but there probably are some things on it. If, however, another person is hurt or slighted by the actions of another, then a crime loses its "victimless" status.

I'd say there are, but it is a VERY small list.

 

[DazZ.]

I would say the same thing if someone presented to me, a proof of the existence of God.
I would read it thoroughly, check its sources, double check and only then if it seemed to be correct, I would step down, admit me being wrong and eat my hat. (Not that I have one)



But untill I see that conclusive "proof" I will continue to regard it as wishfull thinking.

Read the article someone else quoted you with. I would go find the bucketload of articles and papers I've read on Alcohol vs Weed with alcohol turning out worse but it's 2am, I'm sure you can find them on your own.

But what qualifies you to know what you're talking about rather than the people who have done research and papers on the subject?

...british, peer reviewed, medical journal "The Lancet" published an article...

Source?

Just a guess, but I'm going to say the source is "The Lancet".

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

"Victimless Crimes"
Drug use (addicts aren't helped by it being illegal)
Prostitution (people forced into it aren't helped by the fact that it is illegal)
Suicide (including the Kervorkian type)
Gay Marriage (American here)

None of these have victims outside of the consequences of prohibition and inability to go to the police to complain about how they are mistreated by their pimp or how their shit got stolen. If you wanna say you can be a "victim" of your own actions, then you are abdicating all concept of personal responsibility and begging for a fascist government/theocratic church to take care of you.
You are effectively saying people are too stupid to have freedom. And you will find yourself in such good company as Stalin and Hitler.
Yes, I went there.
Plenty of laws serve no purpose other than to give other people power over your life and make others rich.

 

[Klepa]

Some things are victimless in theory, but doing them increases the chances of someone being a victim.

For example, speeding is a victimless crime, however, if you speed you are more likely to have an accident, which will have a victim.

Pretty much the basis of recreational drugs being illegal. Me doing a bit of charlie isn't hurting anyone, apart from myself, but once I run out of money, I'm extremely likely to commit a crime in order to feed my addiction.

 

[DazBurger]

One may counter by saying that alcohol is more damaging.
They simply dont know what they talk about :/

Or they present you with evidence and you just say "but I've seen it happen!".

What about presenting your evidence before telling me how I should react?

I said "they" not "I", nor anything about how you should react.

I would say the same thing if someone presented to me, a proof of the existence of God.
I would read it thoroughly, check its sources, double check and only then if it seemed to be correct, I would step down, admit me being wrong and eat my hat. (Not that I have one)



But untill I see that conclusive "proof" I will continue to regard it as wishfull thinking.

Read the article someone else quoted you with. I would go find the bucketload of articles and papers I've read on Alcohol vs Weed with alcohol turning out worse but it's 2am, I'm sure you can find them on your own.

But what qualifies you to know what you're talking about rather than the people who have done research and papers on the subject?

So far I have only found articles about addiction, mortallity and healtissues bound to the use.

If one wants to question mortallity-rates you could just aswell bring in calories and cars.
I dont question those things, and they arent why its outlawed. (I assume,perhaps wrongly)

The problem with drugs is the mental issues, even when not "over used", where alcohol mostly just gives heath-issues, which still leaves you a potential contributer to society.


And about my qualifications to be discussing here, who says that I have read any less than you?


Besides that... I dont need any, this is a forum where anything we might say have absolutely no meaning what so ever.
We could be discussing this untill the end of days, and by then, drugs would still be illegal.

And I thank FSM for that :/

 

[DazZ.]

And about my qualifications to be discussing here, who says that I have read any less than you?

That's fine, however I didn't mean me, if you actually read what I wrote I said people who have done research and papers on the subject. If I had written anything about it it would have been the first thing I linked.

I'm not saying people "don't know what they're talking about". It's fine to give opinions on a forum, you can't tell people they don't know what they're talking about when you don't actually have anything to back yourself up apart from a "first hand experience". This is the internet, everyone has first hand experience at everything.

The rest of what you talked about has nothing to do with anything I said...

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Every crime has a victim. Even piracy, the victim is the game company because you're not spending 50 bucks for their game. Or even if you're killing yourself, your family are victimized.

Loitering probably has a victim somewhere, but I'm not sure where it is.

If someone is practicing to drive where your loitering, you could get their front bumper all bloody!

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Reasonable answer: Ninja'd jaywalking is in most cases victimless.
Unreasonable answer: Vehicular Manslaughter. Huh Huh, durrrrr.

The second one actually makes sense, as long as it was someone everyone hated. A victim is a person and if nobody considers them a person because everyone hates them so much you could look at it as a victimless crime.

 

[Fizzpopper]

I was going to say no, but

Loitering

I don't really see any victim in loitering, so I had to go with yes.

EDIT: Oh, and another thing. I think the police force are one of the most underappreciated civil service jobs, at least in Britain. An unforgiving media that are so far from perfect they share an office with Satan latch onto them for not being able to clairvoyantly predict how a crime will be committed, a public made ignorant by police procedurals which have no reflection on reality condemn them for not doing their job 'properly.'

I'm glad someone else posted something like this, I didn't want to bother defending cops, since normally the people attacking them are completely ignorant about how the majority are excellent hard working people. The problem is that every time something happens the media tries to spin it in a way to paint all cops as bad people, when in reality it's only a very small minority that cause problems. A good example is the press conference with the Toronto Chief of Police the night of the g20 riots. Several reporters tried to ask questions that were spun to make the police look bad, rather than the violent protesters.

Problem is that the police made *themselves* look bad when they arrested nearly 1,000 people who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VIOLENCE. Don't believe me? An acquaintance of mine wrote a note about PASSING BY a peaceful protest and getting arrested for being in the area. A couple who finished up a nice dinner at the Keg walked out the front door of the restaurant, only to be arrested for BEING IN THE AREA. Media personnel, bus drivers, lawyers, students, grannies...almost 1,000 people were arrested, never read their rights, most weren't told what the charges were, were locked up for just under the legal 24 hour limit without food or water and no sleep. The violent protesters still haven't haven't been arrested. http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=397205503638&id=511491565&ref=mf

If that doesn't bother you, how about the media personnel who were on the scene: http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/6497-alt-perspectives-on-toronto-protests.html

Or perhaps you'd like to know the similarities to other incidents where the police have tried to "clean up the streets" and only succeeded in violating innocent people's rights while the violent assholes got away scot-free? http://www.prisonplanet.com/peaceful-protesters-attacked-arrested-while-cop-car-arsonists-left-alone.html

Now, please, don't get me wrong, I am NOT a cop hater. In fact, I have nothing but respect for the boys and girls in blue, and I think they have a thankless job that offers them little compensation for the crap they have to take. However, there are others out there that get swept up into the mob mentality and when the adrenaline starts pumping, they suddenly think they're Rambo and it's their DUTY, man, their god-given RIGHT to smash every single person's face in that even *attempts* to disrespect their authoritah! It's these jerks that make the majority of the hard-working, honest and trust-worthy cops a bad name, and it saddens me that this kind of behaviour is still tolerated in North America...

Sorry to get political, but it irritates me that people are only being shown what the TO police department wants them to see...

 

[TheScottishFella]

now what we think of the police is secondary to this debate, alhtough im happy to hear your opinions (mine being: the police are fucking useless bullies in uniforms who only leave their desks to beat up drunks).
/quote]

I think that's a bit harsh but I guess it is a matter of opinion

 

[GundamSentinel]

A crime can have an immediate victim (assault) or a potential victim (breaking speed limits). The victim can be the perpetrator (no, you shouldn't harm yourself) or someone else. The harm can be physical, mental or monetary. I can't think of any crime that doesn't have a victim in some way. Even jaywalking (potential physical harm to yourself, potential monetary and mental harm to the guy running you over with his truck).