|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 26, 2011 20:48:38 GMT -5
That's a direct result of prohibitionist policies. If drugs were legal, people wouldn't be killing other people over them. Just look at Prohibition-era America! People weren't killing other people over alcohol until the government decided to make alcohol illegal. The government literally created the first drug-runners. Regardless of why, they are not a victimless crime. ....unless you grew them yourself for your own use, then you may have a point. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 26, 2011 20:59:14 GMT -5
I notice this has yet to be answered... Oh, sod it. I'll tackle this. Drug use is, arguably, a victimless crime. The act of ingesting a drug only harms the one ingesting it. Murder and rape, on the other hand, have actual victims, the person who is killed or violated. Thus, it could be argued that the police should go after the crime that does the greater harm. I'm not arguing either way, just trying to flesh out the idea. Irrelevant. If the law says that the drugs in this particular case were inadmissible as evidence due to an unreasonable search/seizure it would say the same fucking thing about a violent crime. Or money counterfeiting. Or any other crime. It doesn't distinguish. |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on May 26, 2011 21:27:45 GMT -5
I notice this has yet to be answered... Oh, sod it. I'll tackle this. Drug use is, arguably, a victimless crime. The act of ingesting a drug only harms the one ingesting it. Murder and rape, on the other hand, have actual victims, the person who is killed or violated. Thus, it could be argued that the police should go after the crime that does the greater harm. I'm not arguing either way, just trying to flesh out the idea. Um, I'm afraid I disagree. My Uncle Sean was murdered by a crack addict in London looking for money for their next fix. They got less than 20 pounds. In the 80s I had three students who were severely injured and one who was killed when the driver of the car they were in, who was high on pot, missed a turn and drove into oncoming traffic. The cousin of one of my current students was a passenger on a commuter train that derailed, killing and injuring dozens, because the engineer was high. My own great gram was beaten to death by her husband who was in the grip of a drunken rage. I have, when a younger, stupider man, said things when in my cups that were hateful, spiteful, and most definitely hurtful. I am happy to say I never raised my hand against a woman, but I have many phantom bruises on my knuckles from drunken violence, and the Sandman is no stranger to the drunk tank. The act of ingesting a drug, any drug, most certainly can harm those who have not taken it. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 26, 2011 21:33:51 GMT -5
Move over Shane. Ironbite-I need that desk for headbutting myself. All yours, Ibbles. the sandman: Thank you for giving real life anecdotes. That's much better than what I was going to respond with. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 26, 2011 21:34:37 GMT -5
I notice this has yet to be answered... Oh, sod it. I'll tackle this. Drug use is, arguably, a victimless crime. The act of ingesting a drug only harms the one ingesting it. Murder and rape, on the other hand, have actual victims, the person who is killed or violated. Thus, it could be argued that the police should go after the crime that does the greater harm. I'm not arguing either way, just trying to flesh out the idea. You're not answering, you're trying to gloss over that a crime is a crime no matter what. If they should ignore your preferred crime to ignore, then they should ignore any crime |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 27, 2011 4:09:40 GMT -5
I'll concede that there was probable cause of a crime that allowed the search, just because it could have potentially been a serious crime where discarding the evidence would have been ridiculous. I've been avoiding the elephant in the room (the ridiculousness of the war on drugs) because legally, crime = crime and can't be selectively enforced. So you could say I've changed my mind, if only because letting go a more serious crime would be bad, and that particular situation would be too hard to fabricate to be very abusable.
As for the victimless nature of drugs, since that got dragged into this thread, the act of taking a drug is completely victimless. Anyone that acts like a stupid ass should be held fully responsible, whether or not they're on drugs. Driving under the influence is rightfully a crime because it puts people in direct risk of physical harm, and things like robbery and assault because, duh, they're already crimes. Blaming drugs, and not the criminal, is logically no different than blaming guns for a shooting instead of the shooter.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 27, 2011 5:19:07 GMT -5
I never said I endorsed the logic. I've said many times that driving under the influence of ANYTHING -- even goddamn Benadryl -- should rightfully have appropriate legal consequences. If you rob, rape, murder, jaywalk, whatever, you should be held accountable, as appropriate, regardless of whether or not you were intoxicated.
The act of becoming intoxicated, itself -- that act alone -- has no victim.
What the user may do afterwards? You can't blame the substance for the behavior. Drugs don't "alter" a person, they bring out what a person is truly like inside. A violent drunk has the same impulses while sober, the alcohol just brings them to the forefront. A person who would attack another, and steal their money or belongings, likely would have done the same sober, and used the money for something just as useless. The person should, of course, be held fully responsible for his or her actions, regardless of whether or not they are intoxicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 27, 2011 9:03:06 GMT -5
As for the victimless nature of drugs, since that got dragged into this thread, the act of taking a drug is completely victimless. Not when your gorram smoke gets into my apartment and triggers my girlfriend's asthma. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 27, 2011 9:11:25 GMT -5
Unless you have a history of being "damaging" to others when intoxicated, in which case becoming intoxicated immediately effects them as well.
Or in my uncle's case where we tried to get him to stop drinking, each time he'd drink anything alcoholic it had the whole family physically trying to stop him to the point his kids were crying rivers
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 27, 2011 12:16:43 GMT -5
A person who would attack another, and steal their money or belongings, likely would have done the same sober, and used the money for something just as useless. Someone with a serious addiction will do damn near anything to get their fix. Without the addiction they wouldn't find the contents of someone's wallet worth getting killed, most of the time. Addiction is an ugly, ugly beast. It can and does drive people to do things they normally wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 27, 2011 13:47:05 GMT -5
Unless you have a history of being "damaging" to others when intoxicated, in which case becoming intoxicated immediately effects them as well. Or in my uncle's case where we tried to get him to stop drinking, each time he'd drink anything alcoholic it had the whole family physically trying to stop him to the point his kids were crying rivers The abusive actions are what are harming others, not the alcohol itself. Not once have I ever heard of anyone being assaulted by a container of beer. And if you argue the route of people being worried about health from excessive drinking, well then, just about every activity has victims. Too many video games. Too much fattening food. Working too much to spend any time with the kids. Too much time on the computer. And so on. Not even Superman can make the leap in logic from "Someone gets drunk and beats people" to "Drinking always creates a victim." I'm not denying that addiction can be a serious problem, but I am saying that it's ridiculous to blame a substance when there are a lot of responsible users that *don't* create victims. Addictions need to be dealt with on an individual basis, not by making blanket statements that anyone who consumes X does Y. |
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 27, 2011 14:40:11 GMT -5
The abusive actions are what are harming others, not the alcohol itself. Not once have I ever heard of anyone being assaulted by a container of beer. And if you argue the route of people being worried about health from excessive drinking, well then, just about every activity has victims. Too many video games. Too much fattening food. Working too much to spend any time with the kids. Too much time on the computer. And so on. Not even Superman can make the leap in logic from "Someone gets drunk and beats people" to "Drinking always creates a victim." I'm not denying that addiction can be a serious problem, but I am saying that it's ridiculous to blame a substance when there are a lot of responsible users that *don't* create victims. Addictions need to be dealt with on an individual basis, not by making blanket statements that anyone who consumes X does Y. But if a substance can be shown to be addictive to the point where it seriously affects an individual's ability to be responsible with said substance, then honestly, it is quite easy to point the blame at said substance. Also, the only reason why alcohol isn't treated more seriously is due to cultural acceptance. Also, there is a difference between types of addiction, so lumping in behavioural addiction and substance dependence/addiction together doesn't really help your argument. A substance can and does make people into addicts, regardless of intent and responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on May 27, 2011 15:07:27 GMT -5
I'm going to go ahead and say it doesn't matter whether or not drug use is a victimless crime (at least, not for the purposes of this discussion). It doesn't matter if we should have laws against it. It matters that we do have laws against it. We don't let police pick and choose which crimes they go after.
I'm not saying that the pros and cons of anti-drug laws aren't a topic worthy of discussion, but they're irrelevant to this particular case.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 27, 2011 19:47:03 GMT -5
All the violence associated with the drug trade comes directly from prohibition. The government has, in effect, created a criminal class, and all over a fucking PLANT.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 27, 2011 20:00:36 GMT -5
All the violence associated with the drug trade comes directly from prohibition. The government has, in effect, created a criminal class, and all over a fucking PLANT. Again regardless of the prohibition, if you buy drugs you are supporting people who hurt others. So there is a victim. Unless you make of grow the drug yourself you have to by it in order to take it. So when you buy the devils lettuce you are indirectly hurting people. |
|
