Debates
03 Apr 08
03 Apr 08
We can't enforce them all!
States may free inmates to save millions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/prisoners_early_release
The authoritarian government needs to be told to back off by the people! Laws against drugs, prostitutes, gambling and other victimless 'crimes' need to be removed! We're releasing violent criminals to make room for the victims of prohibition!
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is only one problem I see with the thrust of your libertarian agenda is this. Some of the topics you listed could be argued to be not 'victimless' . Drugs and prostituion come to mind
We can't enforce them all!
[b]States may free inmates to save millions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/prisoners_early_release
The authoritarian government needs to be told to back off by the people! Laws against drugs, prostitutes, gambling and other victimless 'crimes' need to be removed! We're releasing violent criminals to make room for the victims of prohibition![/b]
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716As for drugs, the whole situation in the US is selfmade. A world class assshole named Anslinger had a hardon against jazz musicians, blacks and latino's. This was about the year 1930 ish, about the time of the depression. So he had all the antidrug laws enacted and since then, gangs took over the drug trade since now as something illegal, it was something enticing to the general public, the mafia and its ilk must have been laughing all the way to the bank, the Swiss one.
There is only one problem I see with the thrust of your libertarian agenda is this. Some of the topics you listed could be argued to be not 'victimless' . Drugs and prostituion come to mind
So we reap what we sow. Again.
04 Apr 08
Maybe the government should mandate hard drug use. Then the same groups who drop out of school despite compulsory education laws and have a majority of their children from unwed parents will refuse to so what the governemnt declares is best for them and will be tricked into being drug free.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseYou mean this fellow?
As for drugs, the whole situation in the US is selfmade. A world class assshole named Anslinger had a hardon against jazz musicians, blacks and latino's. This was about the year 1930 ish, about the time of the depression. So he had all the antidrug laws enacted and since then, gangs took over the drug trade since now as something illegal, it was something e ...[text shortened]... must have been laughing all the way to the bank, the Swiss one.
So we reap what we sow. Again.
The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (or FBN) was an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury. Established in the Department of the Treasury by an act of June 14, 1930 consolidating the functions of the Federal Narcotics Control Board and the Narcotic Division. These older bureaus was established to assume enforcement responsibilities assigned to the Harrison Narcotic Act, 1914 and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 1922.[1]
Harry J. Anslinger was appointed its first commissioner by Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon under President Herbert Hoover. Under Anslinger, the bureau lobbied for harsh penalties for drug usage. The FBN is credited for criminalizing drugs such as cannabis with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, as well as strengthening the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. Even so, the main focus of the FBN was fighting opium and heroin smuggling. To that end the FBN over time established several offices overseas in France, Italy, Turkey, Beirut, Thailand and other hotspots of international narcotics smuggling. These agents (never totaling more than 17) cooperated with local drug enforcement agencies in gathering intelligence on smugglers and also made undercover busts locally. The work against heroin and opium was however hamstrung by US foreign policy considerations: during the Vietnam war for instance great importance was placed on investigating minor Vietnamese smugglers that could be connected to the resistance while investigations of large scale smugglers from the US ally Thailand were left unfinished.
And this info ....
In the 1970s and later has Anslinger been a target for a lot of criticism from opponents, and of course from Jack Herer and other pro cannabis activists. Opponents call him the "drug czar". A common theme is that Anslinger was responsible for racist themes in articles, not written by Anslinger, against marijuana in the 1930s:
Seems the man was simply doing his job, if he was passionate about, so much the better. The racist stuff appears to actually been the work of others
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Drugs and prostitution are victimless.
There is only one problem I see with the thrust of your libertarian agenda is this. Some of the topics you listed could be argued to be not 'victimless' . Drugs and prostituion come to mind
For a crime to be committed you need a victim and a perpetrator.
Do you have some examples for us to shoot down.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by WajomaHow about a young 16 year old kidnapped and sucked into a white slavery prositituion ring... is that victimless.....hmmmmm
Drugs and prostitution are victimless.
For a crime to be committed you need a victim and a perpetrator.
Do you have some examples for us to shoot down.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by WajomaI'm mugged by some crack addict who can't hold a job but needs cash for his/her addiction ... is that victimless? Hmmm?
Drugs and prostitution are victimless.
For a crime to be committed you need a victim and a perpetrator.
Do you have some examples for us to shoot down.
04 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaYour withdrawing money from a ATM at 9 at night, a teenage heroin addict walks up behind you , puts a gun to your head and makes you withdraw money . He/she decides to keep you from testifying against him its better to put a bullet in your brain. Victimless?
Drugs and prostitution are victimless.
For a crime to be committed you need a victim and a perpetrator.
Do you have some examples for us to shoot down.
Now there are those that would argue that the examples I mentioned would NEVER happen. Even if drugs were legalised and the prices were cheap, you would still have the situation were some addict couldn't hold a job to make the money to buy the drugs they needed even then. Their recourse? Turn to crime.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear7162 points about this last series of post:
I'm mugged by some crack addict who can't hold a job but needs cash for his/her addiction ... is that victimless? Hmmm?
1. Mugging and murder and so on are not victimless crimes. Drug usage and prostitution and so on are victimless crimes (to an extent). But mugging (and other victim-having crimes) is often motivated by a desire to commit victimless crimes such as buying and using drugs.
2. The point therefore becomes, how to minimize the committing of victim-having crimes while allowing the most freedom for individuals to live as they wish to. If you agree with me so far, then you might take a listen to the following interview with William F. Buckley on the subject of drug-legalization. It seems that one of the granddaddies of American conservativism is in favor of ending the drug war.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by bjohnson407I'm in favor of legalising drugs as well, however, people couldn't deal with the amount of personal responsibility they'd have to handle if their 'victimless crime' caused someone else to be a victim of their actions.
2 points about this last series of post:
1. Mugging and murder and so on are not victimless crimes. Drug usage and prostitution and so on are victimless crimes (to an extent). But mugging (and other victim-having crimes) is often motivated by a desire to commit victimless crimes such as buying and using drugs.
2. The point therefore becomes, how to ...[text shortened]... nservativism is in favor of ending the drug war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI
In other words, your on drugs and injure, kill , rob another individual or damage their property, the penalty would be swift and severe. Leniency would not play a factor.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Willing customer, willing merchant. Who's the victim? How come the 'victim' isn't the one trying to get these laws passed? It's third parties who decide FOR the 'victim' that s/he's a victim and then tell the person s/he's not allowed to be a 'victim' as the third party sees it.
There is only one problem I see with the thrust of your libertarian agenda is this. Some of the topics you listed could be argued to be not 'victimless' . Drugs and prostituion come to mind
It's not the same thing as when a person attacks another, and the second person wants protection. No, it's a third party forcing 'protection' on a person who doesn't necessarily want it or even want to allow it.
04 Apr 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716I don't see why certain drugs should not be legalized. For example, marijuana is used as a relaxant for Rastafarian's. In prescribed doses it is not lethal in the least, but relaxing, rather. In the constitution we are allowed freedom of religion, and many Rastafarian religious practices involve marijuana. How can you possibly have some drugs in this case, illegal, if it is constitutionally unsound? However, there are always people that use drugs for very stupid purposes, such as to get a good 'trip'. Now how do we separate those with foul intentions and those who do have good intentions? This is another battle entirely....
I'm in favor of legalising drugs as well, however, people couldn't deal with the amount of personal responsibility they'd have to handle if their 'victimless crime' caused someone else to be a victim of their actions.
In other words, your on drugs and injure, kill , rob another individual or damage their property, the penalty would be swift and severe. Leniency would not play a factor.