Victimless crimes

[ComradeDaryl]

What do people here think about victimless crimes? You know, the crimes that don't have a victim, like blasphemy or stuff like that? I find that victimless crimes still being illegal is crazy.

I wonder what philosopher has the same saying/similar thinking, "Let people do whatever they want as long as they do not harm others (physically or mentally), the environment, or the property of others."

[Cianna200]

Yeah I find it baffling that you can get thrown in jail for things that don't harm people, I wonder what's the deal with that. Especially with parents, the fact you get punished for actions that can't cause real harm. I know the religion Wicca says this "Do as ye will but harm none." That is do whatever you want as long as it doesn't cause any kind of injury to another.
Again you are not alone in your intelligent beliefs.

[brainiac3397]

Blasphemy isnt exactly what victimless crime means in the West. It mainly means gambling, drugs, and prostitutes. I personlly dont see a reason to make prostitution illegal. Drugs is iffy. Id certainly oppose a deregulation of gambling though. Its pretty clear that wherever gambling crops up, so does crime and poverty. Atlantic City is a slum, and Vegas aint pretty due to violent crime.

Sure, technically casinos have shown a peopensity to boost the local economy. However, it brings it with some very nasty side effects. Gambling is like the godfather of crime. The bigger it gets, the more it attracts. I wouldnt even call it victimless.

[schoolsux]

Victimless crime is total bullshit.

[thewake]

(10-26-2015 02:38 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  Blasphemy isnt exactly what victimless crime means in the West. It mainly means gambling, drugs, and prostitutes. I personlly dont see a reason to make prostitution illegal. Drugs is iffy. Id certainly oppose a deregulation of gambling though. Its pretty clear that wherever gambling crops up, so does crime and poverty. Atlantic City is a slum, and Vegas aint pretty due to violent crime.

Sure, technically casinos have shown a peopensity to boost the local economy. However, it brings it with some very nasty side effects. Gambling is like the godfather of crime. The bigger it gets, the more it attracts. I wouldnt even call it victimless.

Maybe if it was legalized over a wide area, it wouldn't concentrate these bad things in one area.

And Atlantic city and Vegas are only two data points. You're not doing a robust analysis.

[brainiac3397]

Yeah Im sure outside of the 2 gambling capitals of the US Ill find an orderly liberal utopia untouched by crime. Perhaps on the Indian Reservations, ya know the places wracked by intense poverty.

Or perhaps Philadelpia could be a good example. Built a casino and crime went down in the neighborhood. Next neighborhood however experienced a rise in crime. Perhaps had something to do with how the police presence in casino neighborhood was increased...and likely detracted from other areas.

Casinos have either led to crime in neighborhood or they cooperate strongly with the government to sustain themselves and the security in the area.

[TheCancer]

There are no casinos in Detroit and it's violent as hell. Since we're jumping to conclusions about causal relationships it sounds like the absence of casinos is a very destructive force. They don't have them in the Bronx, Baltimore, Atlanta, DC, Compton... Not having casinos is bad news.

[brainiac3397]

(10-27-2015 09:05 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  There are no casinos in Detroit and it's violent as hell. Since we're jumping to conclusions about causal relationships it sounds like the absence of casinos is a very destructive force. They don't have them in the Bronx, Baltimore, Atlanta, DC, Compton... Not having casinos is bad news.

Way to knock what I said out of the ballpark. Obviously I was implying that because a casino tends to lead to an uptick in violence and poverty in a region, I clearly meant to say "casino is crime manifested"...

Poverty tends to be the main motivator of crimes. Casinos profit by taking your money. They can't profit if they're entirely fair, so they have some degree of house advantage. Casinos are also experts at manipulating human emotions(some casinos have rooms literally set aside to watch customers and quickly send staff to "energize" them to continue gambling either through free chips, free food, free drinks, or free night stay).

Their profit scheme is literally "What's the best way to empty all their wallets and bank accounts without losing much of our own cash". The money "paid" to them has absolutely no return whatsoever(unless you count some single-digit percentage of winning a jackpot a service).

But if you'd prefer, you can go on hitting your homeruns instead of contributing anything of substance.

[ComradeDaryl]

As for all drugs, I say legalize all of them worldwide, and end the war on drugs worldwide. It's up to them on how they choose their life, as long as they don't harm others.

[brainiac3397]

(10-28-2015 03:56 AM)ComradeDaryl Wrote:  As for all drugs, I say legalize all of them worldwide, and end the war on drugs worldwide. It's up to them on how they choose their life, as long as they don't harm others.

PCP might not be a very social-friendly drug.(albeit PCP might not cause the actual aggresion but simply make those prone to it simply be more likely to do it assuming it affects them in that manner)

I'm also not sure what changes there'd be for junkies. I mean, a junkie is a junkie. Legal or not, they'll still be filthy street scum.

And ma tax money will not be paying for the medical treatment of such slime that chose to live in their temporary drug-induced bliss because reality was too difficult to swallow.

[TheCancer]

Brainiac I know quite well how casinos operate.

First you say, "Gambling is like the godfather of crime." Then you describe how casinos work with comps and the house edge. You haven't connected any dots linking casinos to crime any more than I have linking a lack of casinos to crime. And to take it one step further, I don't even think you can link poverty to crime any more than I can link wealth to crime. I personally believe the rich are far more likely to be criminals than the poor. Just less likely to get charged and/or convicted.

[TheCancer]

Brainiac, PCP use is so rare it's hardly worth mentioning. And as for junkies being street slime, the typical drug addict is your soccer mom type with her scripts for Xanax and Vicodin. Plus, a lot of heroin and cocaine addicts are rich.

[brainiac3397]

Junkie is street slime. So whatever they were, now theyre junkies.

Im sure when legalized, itll be easier for every dick and jane to afford cocaine and heroin.

[TheCancer]

That's just name calling and stereotyping.

[brainiac3397]

(10-29-2015 08:37 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  That's just name calling and stereotyping.

R ur feelingz hurt?

[TheCancer]

No. I'm just saying your points are invalid. Usually, you're much more articulate.

[Sunbourn]

Those who want to do drugs don't care whether or not it's legal. They'll do so either way. At the very least, cannabis should be legal because it is much more benign than alcohol and most other illegal drugs. It's a massive waste of tax payer money to put cannabis users in jail. It also hurts the economy by taking people out of the workforce, since cannabis users generally still work regardless of their habit.

A case could be made for legalizing other less harmful drugs as well, such as magic mushrooms, but I see no hope of this happening anywhere anytime soon. Heroin and other opioids? Decriminalize for the users, lock up the dealers. Put some of the money saved from locking the users up toward rehabilitating them. Imprisonment should be reserved only for people who have harmed others. If someone who is addicted to heroin steals in order to satisfy their addiction, yes, by all means imprison that person and attempt forced rehabilitation from heroin. For possession of heroin alone? Quit wasting time and go after the real criminals.

[brainiac3397]

(10-29-2015 10:48 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  No. I'm just saying your points are invalid. Usually, you're much more articulate.

If Junkie means drug addict, and the drug addicts are soccer moms, then the soccer moms are drug addicts. Slime is considered repulsive, and if a junkie is a drug addict then they're more prone to becoming repulsive and thus becoming slime.

There is no stereotype about it. A junkie is slime. A junkie is repulsive. A drug addict is repulsive.

Quote:Brainiac I know quite well how casinos operate.

First you say, "Gambling is like the godfather of crime." Then you describe how casinos work with comps and the house edge. You haven't connected any dots linking casinos to crime any more than I have linking a lack of casinos to crime. And to take it one step further, I don't even think you can link poverty to crime any more than I can link wealth to crime. I personally believe the rich are far more likely to be criminals than the poor. Just less likely to get charged and/or convicted.

I'm sure people are more inclined to become criminals out of desperation than they are inclined through arrogance. Especially in regards to violent crime.

[ComradeDaryl]

You love being an apologist for statist actions, don't you, Brainiac?

[brainiac3397]

Somebody has to crash circle-jerk parties...