RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not?

RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (9/26/2010 7:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HardHum quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen By your standard no financial crime would be a felony. Madoff would simply be guilty of a few misdemeanors. I think the sane portion of the populace can agree that Madoff needs to spend more than 364 days in some county jail. Felonies are serious crimes against society. They do not need to be violent. As to illegal drugs there are civil liberties arguments to be made about their legality and the variation in punishment based on quantity and specific type of drug but there are far too many very dangerous substances that people can and will abuse to do away with the controlled substance act. Opiates and rohypnol for instance. I think his point is that drug offenses don't have any victims. For example, if I take cocaine, it is indeed a crime under the status quo, however, there are no victims who suffer from this so-called crime. Moreover, if I sell you cocaine, there is no victim in that transaction. It would merely be a voluntary transaction between two consenting adults. However, if I sold you baby powder and induced you to pay vastly inflated prices by convincing you that said baby powder was actually cocaine, then you would be a victim of fraud. I think his point is that the government creates a crime out of thin air without actually producing a victim. A component that many people would deem necessary for a criminal act. The fact is drug abuse causes societal harm. While an argument can be made about whether something like pot rises to the point where the amount of harm done must be prohibited that argument is far less viable for cocaine, opiates, hallucigens and meth. Simply put the victim of the crime of selling those drugs and consuming them is society at large and society has a vested interest in preventing their casual use.

HardHum -> RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (9/26/2010 12:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fact is drug abuse causes societal harm. While an argument can be made about whether something like pot rises to the point where the amount of harm done must be prohibited that argument is far less viable for cocaine, opiates, hallucigens and meth. Simply put the victim of the crime of selling those drugs and consuming them is society at large and society has a vested interest in preventing their casual use. Prohibition doesn't reduce any alleged "societal harm". In fact, it increases societal harm by promoting organized crime, massive public spending, a militarized police force and destruction of civil liberties. It insures that those substances are produced and distributed by the worst people in the world who are in no way accountable to their customers. Moreover, a substances relative danger isn't a factor in it's legal status. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal and they certainly aren't harmless like marijuana. Alcohol and cigarettes exacts a heavy toll on people. they destroy many lives and impose huge actual costs on our society. The progressives crammed alcohol prohibition down our throats and it caused more problems than it solved. That fact, of course, had little impact with the state that had increased it's powers and forcibly prevented fully grown adults from making their own decisions whether their drinking was problematic or not. Prohibition was discarded because the state wanted the tax revenues not because of some libertarian epiphany. The issue should never be whether a substance is harmful or not. It's a liberty issue. If I want to throw away my life drinking alcoholically it's nobodies business but my own. If I cross the line and start fights, drunkenly speed around in my car or pee in elevators, that is a different matter altogether, but banning alcohol for ALL adults isn't going to stop me from doing those things anyway.

DomKen -> RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (9/26/2010 6:09:00 PM)
The counter argument is simple, opium and China in the 19th century. The European powers flooded the nation with cheap opium which crippled the nation and eventually toppled the entire society leading directly to the communist takeover.

rulemylife -> RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (9/26/2010 7:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fact is drug abuse causes societal harm. While an argument can be made about whether something like pot rises to the point where the amount of harm done must be prohibited that argument is far less viable for cocaine, opiates, hallucigens and meth. Simply put the victim of the crime of selling those drugs and consuming them is society at large and society has a vested interest in preventing their casual use. What societal harm would that be? It seems to me the societal harm arises out of the fact drug use is defined as a criminal activity. Much like Prohibition gave us an era of gang warfare between those supplying illicit alcohol.

DomKen -> RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (9/26/2010 9:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fact is drug abuse causes societal harm. While an argument can be made about whether something like pot rises to the point where the amount of harm done must be prohibited that argument is far less viable for cocaine, opiates, hallucigens and meth. Simply put the victim of the crime of selling those drugs and consuming them is society at large and society has a vested interest in preventing their casual use. What societal harm would that be? It seems to me the societal harm arises out of the fact drug use is defined as a criminal activity. Much like Prohibition gave us an era of gang warfare between those supplying illicit alcohol. See 19th century China. Widespread addiction harms society.

rulemylife -> RE: how many of these are truly felonies and which are not? (9/27/2010 7:25:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The fact is drug abuse causes societal harm. While an argument can be made about whether something like pot rises to the point where the amount of harm done must be prohibited that argument is far less viable for cocaine, opiates, hallucigens and meth. Simply put the victim of the crime of selling those drugs and consuming them is society at large and society has a vested interest in preventing their casual use. What societal harm would that be? It seems to me the societal harm arises out of the fact drug use is defined as a criminal activity. Much like Prohibition gave us an era of gang warfare between those supplying illicit alcohol. See 19th century China. Widespread addiction harms society. By your argument widespread alcoholism also harms society. Should we legislate a new Prohibition? By your argument smoking harms society. Should we ban tobacco? The problem I have with the societal harm argument is that it can be used for virtually everything. Any action that you take, or fail to take, can be construed as a harm to society.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125