Victemless crime

The drug war is a war on individual rights. One of the big reasons for the assault weapons ban of 89 was (anyone ?, anyone ?) the Drug War. Drug dealers were outgunning the police. Remember ?. Same thing in 94. the arguement was only cops and criminals needed more than ten rounds in a magazine. The drug war is a trojan horse that will be the end of the 2nd and 4th amendments as we enjoyed their protections in the past. Precedents are being set. I hear people complaining about drug dealers getting off on technicalities....The fourth amendment is not a technicality.
I think we should end the war on drugs and while we're at it decriminalize prostitution...any thoughts ?.
:nod:

Dadgum it...I misspelled Victim...sorry

[BenP]

All I can say is it's the price we pay for lack of concern back when South America was so destitute that women were eating their own children.

[8mm Vigilante]

if you reall wanna win the war on drugs, legalize it, and then federalize it, the feds will completly mismange the whole thing, and chances are we'll have no more drug problems, it'll be such a pain to get any, just like what they're trying to do to guns!
-Jesse

[BenP]

They already have. When PRK took over the marijuana program for those who needed it for medicinal purposes, a lot of the people who were taking it said the govt stuff was like smoking rope. No high, and tasted harsh. The feds would be no better.

I think they ought to genetically engineer a pot plant, a coca plant, and an opium poppy to create a totally toxic plant that, when introduced into the environment, will cross pollinate with native species and create offspring that are just as toxic. Eventually, all the plants of the above species would become unusable. That is scientifically possible right now.

[NRAJOE]

WHEN I WAS STATIONED IN GERMANY MY FRIENDS AND I WOULD FREQUENT THE HOOKER HOTEL. EVEN BACK IN THE 70'S PROSTITUTION WAS LEGAL THERE. THEY HAD WEEKLY TESTS FOR SOCIAL DISEASES AND IT WAS LICENSED AND REGULATED. THERE ARE NO CRIMES IN GERMANY DUE TO PROSTITUTION AND I SAY YES IT SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED WITH LICENSING AND REGULATIONS. MORE TIME FOR COPS TO SPEND ON THE STREETS.

[Doglips]

Goverment run hookers.....would cost 1.5million an hour...and would make you fill out forms for the first 55 min. Still I go with legalize it and tax it....

[Klaus]

BenP, what in the heck are you talking about? I have been to several South American countries and never heard this absurd claim. You said "South America was so destitute that women were eating their own children.".

[EZ1]

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. No victim, No crime.

Drugs are the perp, the person using them is the victim.

Prostitutes are the perp, the John is the victim,(STD,s)

[Klaus]

I agree, there should be no such thing as a "victimless" crime. If an activity does not injure others, or present a great risk of injury to others or deprive them of property or deny them their constitutional rights, it should not be a crime. By "others", I mean people not directly or willingly involved in the activity.

[Eric]

I agree with legalizing prostitution. In most modern countries it is legal. The government sets up stringent regulations that are to reduce the STD rate. The girls must be checked weekly and have it documented on their "card". This would also take them off the street and put them into establishments. Just watch a couple of detective shows on the Discovery channel and you'll start to get an idea of how many women are killed each year working as prostitues. This would also do away with the "pimp" factor. Are far as legalizing drugs...I think it's a good idea but I'm against it. There would be ALOT of people that would never do drugs now that would then try it if it was legalized. Talk about an addict problem. But that's my view. Eric

[EZ1]

If Drugs were decriminalized, there would still be victims, The families of the USERS, and it would still not end the underground drug dealers, because what happens if someone uses up their controlled by government quota, and wanted more. HMMMM back to the streets to look for more ilicit drugs.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Who said there would be quotas. The number of street dealers would be dramaticaly reduced. There is always going to be someone who tries to beat the system, like moonshiners now.

As for the families being the victim of the drug user, sorta like the kids with dirty ragged clothes while mommy stands in line to buy 200$ worth of lotto tickets, or while daddy stays out all night playing pool and getting drunk. I wonder why the governments aren't trying to stop those victimless(?) crimes. HMMM probably so they can keep getting the revenue.

Fact: State of SC wanted to get rid of gambling machines. WHY Well they did it for the kids, Moms leaving the kids in the car all day, spending all of their paycheck at one time etc... They passed a resolution in the house to get rid of the Video poker machines. The next year the state put up the lottery for a vote and it passed. WHY - for the money. THERE"S your victimless crime.

[BattleRifleG3]

I read that Marijuana was restricted due to a lobby by the cotton industry, who feared competition by hemp in textiles. Like Ruger and the assault weapon ban.

[Klaus]

Phacopsrana, I am not sure what you were referring to with "THERE'S your victimless crime". Child abuse and negligence are crimes that clearly have victims.

[Klaus]

Trivia Quiz: Anyone know the root of the word victim? Hint: it is the same as "vittles".

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Klaus

The government lies to get a state lottery passed. Gambling causes people to spend their whole paycheck on lotto tickets instead of providing for their family. There is your STATE SUPPORTED abuse and neglect.

[Klaus]

The freedom to gamble does not CAUSE people to do anything. If people choose to be stupid and irresponsible with their money, it is they who are negligent, and possibly abusive. In the same vein, driver's licenses do not CAUSE hit and runs, and gun ownership does not CAUSE bank robberies.

[Oxford]

After reading Klaus's statment I started thinking of other situations which do not automatically equate to something else which some people assume.

For example:

--Owning a car doesn't make you a bad driver.

--Owning a gun doesn't make you a killer.

--Living in the bible belt doesn't make you a "redneck".

--Being a republican doesn't mean you're rich and have all the answers.

--Being a democrat doesn't mean you're unAmerican.

--Being a bad shot doesn't mean your rights to own or shoot a gun are forfeited.

--Having a college degree doesn't mean you're intelligent or wise.

--Being uneducated doesn't mean you're not intelligent or wise.

--Speaking a lot doesn't mean you know something.

--Speaking a lot doesn't mean what you say is of any value.

--Being quiet doesn't mean you're "dumb".

--Being quite doesn't mean you don't have some good ideas.

--Enjoying looking at a good looking woman doesn't mean you're a sex crazed villian on the prowl.


This list could go on and on and on but I'll stop. You get the point. My point is that we shouldn't assume something about people without knowing the details of a situation. Gets people in trouble and makes fools out of them. Been there and done that so I know it's something to work on.

Oxford :nod:

[alan c.]

Yeah the government knows the implications of the lottery system, but I agree with Klaus. Nobody is twisting their arms to blow their paychecks.