Poll: Should victimless crimes be legal?

While that may be true for some people, in general if you have a bale of marijuana in your living room, you probably aren't going to smoke it all yourself, as at the very least word will get around. The guidelines for drug amounts do make a bit of an assumption as to the intent of the "carrier", a threshold if you will that assumes they will be dealing if they are holding a certain amount or above.




I'd think that being under the influence of a drug indicates that you possessed it at one time. In fact until your liver takes care of it, you're still in technically in possession IMO. Ok so that's a little argumentative; maybe it should be a crime to take drugs. I looked on a website or two, couldn't find a law stating it was a crime to take drugs.



Well, razor blades and nooses aren't mind affecting, they're not illegal, and generally people won't kill you for them, or rob your home to get money to buy them. While there are certainly many people who smoke weed and are quite benign, there are many who aren't, or who utilize weed in conjunction with something else that makes them harmful to others.

If someone wants to use drugs, that's their business. But when it starts affecting people around them, then it starts to become other peoples' business.
 
I would aagree. however, a regulation that offers little inconvieniance (sp?) and at the same time protects the tax payer from unnecessary expenses might as well be legislated...
 
The victims are others in the car, along with others on the road that get hurt because you were thrown away from the control of the car. And seat belts don't save that much time and effort. Are you just plain lazy? You reach up, pull it down, strap it in. Resources aren't spent since the same police officers are already on the roaRAB. If they are stopped it is with good reason since it saves other lives as well. If it only endangered the driver, then I'd say let them kill themselves, but it hurts other in the car and on the road. Here's an example.

I was being driven to school one day and the roaRAB were icy. We were driving and a car skidded right in front of us and went and bounced off a tree in the median. If it had continued it would have hit us right in the side door. But since the other driver was wearing a seet belt he was able to hit the brakes and stay in the first lane where there were no cars. He not only saved his own life, but he saved others from an accident that would have involved us and other cars behind us.
 
racecar drivers wear seatbelts for the same reason that everbody else does. in case of an accident, you are safest in your seat. being tossed about the inside of your car or thrown out the winRABhield or window is much more hazardous to the driver or passenger. the safest place is stationary and in the seat.

that said, not wearing your seatbelt does not impair your abilities to control the car under the same conditions as wearing a seatbelt. a 50 year old man going 65 mph through the snow is as likely to lose control of the car, regardless of if the seatbelt is worn or not
 
it is unanimously clear that seatbelts do not aid in controlling the vehicle. if you are fishtailing at a speed that can possibly cause you to slip side-ways, then you cannot safely control that car, even if you are wearing seatbelts. keeping others safe while driving consists of driving at controlable speeRAB, being focused and alert, being aware of your surroundings, obeying traffic signals and ensuring that your vehicle is in proper working order. wearing seatbelts is only for the driver's safety, not for others

its probably even easier to make wearing baseball hats and high-heel shoes illegal, since its easy for mr policeman to look at you and enforce such a law. laws are not made simply because they are easy for the police to enforce

seatbelts and drugs are only 2 examples of victimless crimes. i'm talking about all victimless crimes in general.

your reasoning is terribly flawed. can we prove that someone with a lighter in their pocket isnt going to commit arsony? can we prove that somebody with money isnt going to use it to buy a gun and kill somebody? can you prove that someone with internet access isnt going to hack in to the cia mainframe?you dont pass laws because there is a possibility that some harm can come out of it. that would make everything illegal now wouldnt it?
 
Well, technically, if one isn't wearing a seatbelt and wrecks, or if one is doing drugs, they are making themselves the victim lol.
 
You asked me for a reason, and I suggested one. However the laws of the US were originally based on the moral codes of the Bible. I can't speak for why they've changed in the last 200-odd years.



I said potential to harm. Not directly harming, but the chance that it will. Take the case of a fallen electrical wire after a storm. It isn't harming anyone, but has the potential to do so, given the right set of circumstances. So it's prudent to turn it off and repair it, wouldn't you agree? That wolf has rabies, but it's not bothering anyone right now. Just let it alone? Nope, take it out to remove the threat of harm.



The simple acts, no, but the potential and other social ramifications (see below) can. Also, you're harming yourself by those actions, potentially.



Yes, you did. And restating that after I've addressed it is without merit. Did you bother to read my response? You're arguing with me about it after I agreed with you.



Not in all cases. It's impossible to make any blanket statement that will cover all eventualities. Obviously, there are many times that there IS a direct relation between hurting others and a law against whatever the action is.



Did you bother to comprehend or even read Eddie's post? I did. Here:



..."heavy socio-economic costs". There are factors at work other than those in our limited scope of discussion. An example is in order: During Prohibition, many people resorted to making their own wine, beer and liquor. Many people died as a result of poor quality, dangerous ingredients, and other situations. There was even one person that intentionally bottled Methyl alcohol, directly killing or causing blindness in hundreRAB. That's a good argument for regulation right there. Please read my previous posts for discussion on several of the questions you asked in the quote above.



Gee, I don't know. You should probably write your local lawmaker on that one.
 
Have you ever fishtailed a car on dry pavement at 40mph?

Try it both with and without seatbelts and I believe you'll see my point.

Let me break it down for you. At some point prior to the actual "loss of control" (where nothing you do matters) there is a point, or several points, at which you can still maintain control by taking some action; if you're delayed or prevented from taking that action you will lose control; if you can take the action and perform it correctly, you will regain control. Picture sliding on snowy roaRAB, RWD car, fishtailing badly. You make several S-turns down the road, each one larger than the last as you begin to lose control. You're thrown from side to side due to the lateral G-forces of each maneuver. Belted, you're more stable and more able to stay at the controls. Unbelted, you're moving side to side and not as in touch with the controls. I've been in this situation myself, and can say conclusively that it's much easier to regain control while seatbelted.
 
It may work differently in the US, but here we have a pretty comprehensive public health system. If you are involved in a motor accident, the State pays for your care and rehabilitation.
If you choose to drive without a seatbelt, I'd say that should be your own business.There is no crime, and no victim.If, however, you should crash while driving without a seatbelt, then the cost of treating the more serious injuries that you sustain will be incurred as a result of your failting to act responsibly. Sure, there may be the odd freak accident where not wearing a seatbelt lessens the extent of injury, but statistically, seat belts save lives.
The 'victim' of this negligence, is the State, which has to deploy more resources to the unrestrained drivers' injuries.In effect, we are all victims of his selfishness.

On a smaller and sadder scale,the State has limited funRAB for elective surgery.Quite frequently an 'elective surgery' [i.e. non-critical] patient will find their operation cancelled at the last minute,even though their condition may be blameless, to allow for the critical care of the wilfully stupid, the drunk driver, the boy racer, the unrestrained driver, who has contributed significantly to their own situation. I'm not saying deny these people medical care, but at least make them pay the true cost of their negligence. That way the dear old nun in the next bed still gets her hip operation, eventually.
 
My reasoning is terribly flawed?




"unanimously clear"? I challenge you to start a new thread and see if that opinion is indeed unanimous as you claim. Further, you misquoted me, I didn't say that seatbelts aid in controlling the vehicle.

Apparently you failed to use any reasoning at all prior to making that statement.

Did you go out and violently fishtail at the edge of control on dry pavement at 40mph as I suggested? Guess not. Do you have any statistics or links or anything of any kind to back up your assertions? It seems to me you're just arguing to argue at this point. Please step back for a moment and reconsider your goals in this debate. I'll be happy to continue, but have no intention of moving this discussion any further towarRAB flames.
 
Surely they can "profit". It all depenRAB on how you assign value (or utility) to life, health, security etc. The same with the case of wearing seatbelts actually...

Now granted, there are also pure economic costs for alcohol and drugs as well, but the same could easily be said about severe car accidents. Your point doesn`t hold.
 
No, but suicide is, and definitely does have an effect on people. My point in this case is that if Mr. Cobain had NOT been a heroin addict, he would not have been in the incredible depression/situation that led him to take his own life. Therefore, heroin was the ultimate cause of his death; Mr. Cobain simply chose the shotgun as the instrument with which his death would be implemented; it could just have easily been an overdose.




Contradiction, sir. In one sentence you say that drivers not wearing seatbelts costs the government. In the next, you state that passing a law requiring seatbelts has absolutely nothing to do with ... risk reduction of others.

I believe you have made the point of why seatbelt laws are not be a "victimless crime"--

If the government is hurt financially by drivers not wearing seatbelts, doesn't making a law that people must wear their seatbelts have a LOT to do with the government protecting itself from that financial harm?

So I agree -- the government doesn't have our bests interests at heart, just their own pocketbook.
 
Unless you are INCREDIBLY light, that is, light to the piount that the minimal gforces involved in such fishtailing is enough to literally blow you out fo your seat, a seatbelt makes no difference in such a situation.

A seatbelt is meant to supress inertial movement in a single direction only. It is meant to keep uyou from flying forward. It does ntohing as far as side to side movement. Seatbelts do not even LOCK when your car fishtails,m and an unlocked seatbelt can require no more than 10 lbs of force for belt movement (this is a government standard).

The only time your seatbelt locks, which is the only time it restrains you, is during rapid deceleration, such as when you stand on the brake or impact something. The rest of the time it is just hanging there. If your seatbelt locks at other times, it is defective and you visit your local dealership to have it replaced.

Even locked, the driver must have full lateral motion abilty (they must be able to lay fully down to the side) in order for the seat belt to be legal. This is to ensure that the driver, or a passenger, is not trapped upright int heir seat if the car roills over and the roof collapses.

This being the case, there is absolutly no way a seatbelt can aid you in keeping control of your vehicle. It is designed, and the government requires, so much freedom of movement that the ascertation that it would help you remain in your seat, barrign a crash, is virtually a physical impossibility. Even if you were light enough that the Gforces involved in rapid maneuvering (besides rapid deceleration) was able to remove you from your seat, tyhe require,ment that no more than 10 lbs of force be required to move the strap when the seatbelt is unlocked would assure that it would not hold you there.

Racecar drivers wear their seatbelts, as unkerpaulie said, to ensure that in the event of a wreck, the driver stays in their seat, inside the roll cage. Ejection from the vehicle is a killer, whether in a personal vehicle or a high performance race car. You are more likely, by several orders of magnitude, to die if ejected from a vehicle than if you remain inside.

All that said, at the end of the day, wearing your seatbelt effects nobody but you. As I explained above, there is no way your seatbelt is going to protect other drivers, poedestrians, or other passengers. There is no way your seatbelt can really help you maintain control of your vehicle, barring rapid deceleration (which generally means it is already too late), since it is specifically designed NOT to limit lateral movement.
 
Some should be.

We had a similar debate, where someone who I will not name said that criminals should have their rights revoked in correspondoes to the rights they violated, if that crime was a felony. So I asked how transporting a pound of weed violated anyone's rights. He fled, very quickly.

Perhaps I can get someone who is not a coward to deal with the issue.

Anyways, some crimes that do not violate the rights of others or do not cause direct harm to others shouldn't be illegal. As for yourself, i have no right to say how you can't kill yourself, weed, coke or no seatbelt.
 
the government makes the law. the government also decides who the victim is, or what a victim is.

causing financial damage is not a crime in and of itself. earlier, i gave you examples of activities that could cause serious financial harm to lots of people (being fired, raising prices, etc), none of which are illegal. however, the government has within its perogative to define an activity that causes the government financial hurt, and make laws against it.

if not wearing a seatbelt victimizes the government by potentially costing them a lot of money, then why arent activities that cost citizens a lot of money (like raising taxes, prices, lowering wages, etc) also illegal?

dont you see that its legal for the government to victimize the citizens, but illegal for the citizens to utilize the government funRAB that the citizens themselves contribute? dont you realize that its illegal for citizens to make money without the government benefiting from their income as the government sees fit, but legal for the government to take more of your income at anytime and for any reason that they wish?

and you dont have a problem with any of this?
 
I beg to differ. The laws of inertia apply whether you weigh five pounRAB or five hundred. Once you begin moving with the car, when it changes direction you remain moving with the car until an outside force acts upon you to change your direction. When the car begins to fishtail in the opposite direction, the only things holding you in place are the friction between your backside and the seat, the grip you have on the wheel, and whatever bracing you may be doing with your feet. Are you telling me that a seat belt, tightened across your hips, doesn't aid at all in helping to keep you in place? As a practical experiment, try snugging your seatbelt tight across your hips. No go out and drive near the limits of adhesion around a sharp corner. Tell me that your seatbelt doesn't get tighter on one side of your hips or the other. It's helping to hold you in place.




See my previous comment. I'm speaking of the lap belt, while you are obviously referring to the shoulder belt, which I'd agree doesn't lock when the car fishtails and does nothing to prevent side to side motion.





So by your own argument, couldn't it be conjectured that race car drivers wear their seatbelts so as not to be tossed about inside (or outside) the vehicle during a crash? If so, I submit to you that they could be tossed about inside the vehicle during a collision with another vehicle, their 5-point racing harness keeping them behind the wheel and allowing them to continue the race rather than losing their grip on the wheel, and thus their control. We're not talking about several seconRAB here, but rather a very small amount of time in which they are briefly held in position then take action.
 
so drug possession is only illegal because the drugs are illegal? this doesnt make the point that it harms others. in fact this is a classic case of circular reasoning.

on the point of mind-altering (and addictive), so is caffeine and pornography, both of which are legal.

on the point of robbing people to get money for them, i wont even begin to list, for your sake and mine. it has no effect on what makes something illegal


could you give me an example how someone's drug use could affect people around them? are you saying that if something causes you to negatively affect people around you, it should be made illegal?

since we're on the subject, i might as well throw in gambling and prostitution, both of which are illegal (at least in some states). are there any victims involved here? if not, why are they illegal?
 
weed...probably should be legal but only if every country does it...otherwise we become like amsterdam.

other drugs, well, at some point ya know it just doesn't benefit society to have junkies running around.

I mean, I guess owning (selling, buynig) an AK-47 would be victimless yet nothing good would ever come out of it.
 
Back
Top