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.

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.

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.

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.

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.