this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
792 points (89.4% liked)
Political Memes
5601 readers
2620 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is extremely vague with zero context.
Right? There's a lot to criticize the US government for, but I'm pretty sure that this is already how things work. No idea what OP is on about
Why can't I use explosives to fish?
Why is it illegal to spray people with gasoline?
If my company wants to dump toxins into the daycare, they should. There's no laws for it.
This has "park in handicap parking without stickers" energy
This also works as a corporate excuse to do whatever the hell they want to a community and the environment.
This is the huge problem with the optics of Libertarianism as a whole. Thats why Liberal Progressive is a more common term because the right wing co-opts libertarian arguments in a pro-corporate way.
DAMNIT THIS IS MERIKA I SHOULD HAVE A MISSILE LAUNCHER ON THE FRONT YARD BEN WASHINGTON WROTE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION
Don't forget James Hancock, Thomas Madison, and John Jefferson!
Dude, I’m pretty sure it’s Steve Madison.
founding randos
I'm quite sure it was George Jefferson...
Laws against victimless crimes come to mind.
How far down before you don't care about victims.
Technically running red lights are victimless
Running red lights has a victim when someone gets hit in an intersection.
I'm talking about shit like laws against cannabis, where there are no victims at all, or against prostitution, where the presumed victims are the ones who get prosecuted.
So then why am I charged if I haven't hit anyone
Because by running a red light you endanger other road users because you're acting unpredictability and you disrupt the flow of traffic which ultimately creates congestion (more hazardous plus wastes time and resources).
So its a crime to increase risk to society?
There isn't a victim. Just the possible increased risk.
Is it a crime to fire a legally owned gun in a built up neighborhood, even if it doesn't harm or otherwise interfere with anyone? Is it a crime to to drive above the posted speed limit even if you're the only person on the road?
Obviously it is currently illegal to expose bystanders to risk, and in the eyes of the law those exposed bystanders are the victims.
You can argue semantics and say that there's no victim if they're just being exposed to risk, but that's contrary to the logic on which the rest of society functions.
Equally obvious, no such bystander is exposed to risk due to an individuals choice to smoke weed, ergo there is no victim (nor any argument presented that there is).
There is always risk. Having easily accessible weed increases the risk that people will operate vehicles while high or increase number of beds needed in medical systems that refuse to increase beds as inhaling smoke increases cancer risk. I can drive through 100 red lights and never hit anyone but an increased demand for medical care in a system that can't handle it puts me at risk also. I say running a red light is victimless just as smoking weed is also victimless and we have said victimless crimes should not be punishable.
Risk of driving when smoking weed is not a good example, because it is illegal to drive while high - much in the same way that it's illegal to run a red light or illegal to discharge a firearm into the air within city limits - the exact same arguments apply, where the victim is those other bystander who is exposed to risk. Taking two otherwise legal things and combining them makes it a risk to others, and illegal. Same as drink driving, either drinking or driving separately is not considered a risk.
The health insurance thing is a better argument (especially if you're in a country with single payer or otherwise taxpayer funded healthcare). The threshold here is a little more dicy and somewhat subjective, but the core argument is good. Cigarettes are legal, and far more carcinogenic , with a far higher risk of respiratory illness, than cannabis smoke (assuming we're not talking about THC gummies or whatever where the medical costs associated are lower), so if this line is somewhere where things like cigarettes, diesel combustion engines, alcohol, coal fires power plants etc are legal, it wouldn't make sense to make low impact drugs like THC illegal.
So to your first point, we, as a society must have some threshold where we accept some risk, otherwise pretty well existing would be illegal (what if you contract a contagious disease and kill someone?). The main argument here is it should be consistently applied. If the cost in respiratory illness caused by sulfides in coal fires powerplants has associated medical cost of exposed people orders of magnitude higher than the total sum of cost associated with individuals using a particular drug, reason would dictate that if the impact of sulfides is considered acceptable that the far lower impact of that drug is also acceptable. Both of these examples carry negligible risks compared to the more deliberate and dangerous actions like running red lights or firing guns in populated areas, so these could still be illegal with consistent reasoning.
I get the feeling you just want to argue.
But assuming you're serious, consider the question of what would happen if everyone did it: traffic would be severely impacted all the time, and/or a lot of accidents would happen, resulting in lots of victims. Contrast that with smoking weed: we've seen what happens when it's made legal, and it turns out nobody gets hurt as a result except when the people smoking weed are committing some other crime, like DWI.
Weed isn't benign. It exasperates amd can induce psychotic mental health conditions much earlier in some people like schizophrenia and bipolar. It is carcinogenic. It does change people mentally affecting their emotional regulation and behaviors even when not high. There are impacts on already stretched health care systems. And what is wrong with wanting to argue. I want someone to give me good reason to think what constitutes a victimless crime isn't some arbitrary line
FFS, Weed doesn't affect anyone who doesn't choose to be affected. It doesn't even need to be smoked. Ever hear the term "nanny state"?
I don't know what point you're trying to make but if you honestly can't understand the difference between a victimless crime and a real crime, I can't communicate with you on this topic.
Driving through red lights doesn't affect anyone either than. I make it through the intersection, nobody gets hurt and everybody gets what they want. We're arguing same thing. Both are victimless crimes.
you are NOT arguing the same thing:
you making it through an intersection at a red light requires luck. you need to get lucky, every time, or someone fucking dies. a dead person is a fucking victim, therefore it's not a "victimless crime"
weed can't kill you. that's why it's a victimless crime. in extremely rare cases it can cause mental health problems, but only in the person taking it.
the difference is that in one case YOU are responsible for harming someone else, in the other case they did it to themselves AND it's extremely rare AND it's not based on random luck.
these situations are not even close to being the same thing.
In the context of what people have said here they are the same.
Luck has nothing to do with victimless crime. I can safely navigate running red lights and be as safe as smoking weed.
Increases stoners increases amount of stoned drivers on the road. Increasing risk to all drivers.
Smoking anything increases risk of disease. Inhaling any burning substance increases risk both to mental and physical health. Increasing demand on medical systems already stretched thin. Who says a pot head doesn't kick someone out of prompt medical care by taking up a bed or service.
But again increasing risk doesn't create any victims. We've said no victimless crime should exist. Unless they should exist and that risk to public is a viable reason to create a law.
If I shoot you with a gun but fail, why do I get arrested if I haven’t hit anyone?
Intent?
I haven't attempted to kill anyone running a red light. So where is the harm
The harm is that you can seriously harm someone. Like driving drunk.
Are you for real?? Does this not make sense in your head?
You find the right argument but you failed to make the right conclusion.
Running a red light you are intentionally putting others lives at risk. If you run a red light on accident and you kill someone, it's manslaughter. If you intentionally run a red light and kill someone its murder 2.
Yet there is no victim. You're not a victim because the risk is higher.
Because then the argument changes to that there are victimless crimes that are reasonable to have and that on that scale everything from running red lights to drug use would be on it
Your inability to understand that killing someone when you run a red light and hit them is either man slaughter or murder is probably where your inability to see how your position is flawed comes from.
I've already said I'm not going to hit anyone. And those are already crimes
😂 Do you not understand hypotheticals?
It's called risk, look it up.
🤗 hugs bro
In general, traffic violations are not technically crimes, they're civil matters, therefore there doesn't have to be a victim. Also burden of proof is much lower.