Another "victimless crime"

[GunSlinger]

Avatar......drops mic

 

[BE Mike]

While tragic, the crime was not drug use but neglect of an infant.

Poor choices can have far reaching consequences, but not all of those choices need be taken by threat of force from everyone.

Wow, that's a relief! Now I can just decide what is good for me regardless of how it impacts others. I'll be driving and texting while drinking. It's called liberty!

 

[Alpo]

Vices are not crimes, even where statutes may prohibit.

Neglect of an infant is a crime, even where statutes may not prohibit.

Vices ARE crimes. Just because you don't bother someone else in your use of illicit substances, there is a trail of blood and dead bodies in the supply chain. If you use, You are part of the problem.

 

[Woobie]

Vices ARE crimes. Just because you don't bother someone else in your use of illicit substances, there is a trail of blood and dead bodies in the supply chain. If you use, You are part of the problem.

But if the vice were not a crime, would there be the blood and bodies? The problem is the supply chain, which is forced to operate as it does by the current legal structure. The demand will never go away, and neither will the supply. Our choice is to decide if we want to continue to pay for a system that encourages such violence.

 

[churchmouse]

But if the vice were not a crime, would there be the blood and bodies? The problem is the supply chain, which is forced to operate as it does by the current legal structure. The demand will never go away, and neither will the supply. Our choice is to decide if we want to continue to pay for a system that encourages such violence.

I would ask you what the answer (in your mind) is but I am afraid.
Any answer that would put a burden (beyond what we already have) on us through taxation is just no answer.

 

[ATM]

Wow, that's a relief! Now I can just decide what is good for me regardless of how it impacts others. I'll be driving and texting while drinking. It's called liberty!

You'd still own the consequences of your choices, it just wouldn't be a crime against the State to choose.

Vices ARE crimes. Just because you don't bother someone else in your use of illicit substances, there is a trail of blood and dead bodies in the supply chain. If you use, You are part of the problem.

Good luck trying to reconcile the first statement with the last.

Once you consider vices crimes, you must determine that choices are the problem and all your solutions will be to deprive freedom of choice rather than holding individuals responsible and accountable for their choices.

 

[Alpo]

See my tag line. I don't need to argue the merits of your libertarian philosophy further.

 

[223 Gunner]

You guys have pretty much covered everything. All I can say is it is absolutely heart breaking. I can't imagine that poor little girl screaming and crying that eventually turned to a whimper as she laid there completely helpless and dependent on two people that have no business raising children. Absolutely sickening as well. Yes this kind of stuff has got to stop. As a Nation we need to turn around and start being responsible people on many levels, I know on here I'm preaching to the choir, but damn something has to change.

 

[churchmouse]

See my tag line. I don't need to argue the merits of your libertarian philosophy further.

His tag line is absolutely true.
There are victims.
Freedom can be argued in this but in the end when you are stepping on the rights and freedoms of others you have crossed the line.

 

[Woobie]

I would ask you what the answer (in your mind) is but I am afraid.
Any answer that would put a burden (beyond what we already have) on us through taxation is just no answer.

There will always be bodies at the point of use. Nothing can change that, and apparently nothing can stop it. I hate to throw in the towel, but no one has come close to anything resembling success in stopping drug use.

What we can do is eleminate the string of murders and corruption that runs from here to South America.*
We can cripple the cartels that have caused so much upheaval for our southern neighbor.*
We can eleminate the billions spent on enforcing the prohibition.
We can open up prison space so our violent offenders stay there.*
We can eliminate the profit motive for the turf wars in our cities.*
With one act we can dramatically shrink two monsters: the cartels and government.

*All of these things are currently killing children, just like the senseless death in the OP. The difference is we can do something about these.

The idea that this will cause a massive increase in users has not been borne out in the other nations that have ended their prohibitions. Thus, an accompanying increased tax and insurance burden is unlikely to be realized, at least in a meaningful way, and certainly not on a level that equals what we are currently spending on enforcement and incarceration.

 

[Woobie]

See my tag line. I don't need to argue the merits of your libertarian philosophy further.

Drug use is not the act that creates a victim. Suicide, such as in the OP, abandonment, neglect all create victims. But then so do drug runners, powerful and corrupt cartels, turf wars and black market deals gone bad. What makes those victims less important?

 

[churchmouse]

There will always be bodies at the point of use. Nothing can change that, and apparently nothing can stop it. I hate to throw in the towel, but no one has come close to anything resembling success in stopping drug use.

What we can do is eleminate the string of murders and corruption that runs from here to South America.*
We can cripple the cartels that have caused so much upheaval for our southern neighbor.*
We can eleminate the billions spent on enforcing the prohibition.
We can open up prison space so our violent offenders stay there.*
We can eliminate the profit motive for the turf wars in our cities.*
With one act we can dramatically shrink two monsters: the cartels and government.

*All of these things are currently killing children, just like the senseless death in the OP. The difference is we can do something about these.

The idea that this will cause a massive increase in users has not been borne out in the other nations that have ended their prohibitions. Thus, an accompanying increased tax and insurance burden is unlikely to be realized, at least in a meaningful way, and certainly not on a level that equals what we are currently spending on enforcement and incarceration.

I agree with all of your points save 1.....increased use. I have so little faith in the decision making ability's most of the populace exhibit these days.
Let me ask you this. How will these addicts pay for these program drugs. They will be doing as they do now......theft, deception, home invasion, convenient store robbery/murder. That end will not change at all. And to change that we will have to provide those individuals with the drugs. In that we are burdened as tax payers and brother I am here to tell you that aint gonna fly.

I know 1st hand how those lost souls operate. I have been 1st hand exposed. I have suffered at their deceit and complete lack of morel standards and honor.
This includes an already legal drug, Alcohol. It causes so much pain and suffering on its own. Thing is there is no war on Alcohol.

 

[gregr]

The needles provided by the states is to keep people from getting infected by sharing re-used needles.
You can't say it's to encourage people to do drugs.

That logic is so convoluted as to be delusional.

 

[Woobie]

That logic is so convoluted as to be delusional.

There is no increase in use. Without needle exchanges, they just reuse needles. The difference is the public health problem that arises from reusing. HIV, Hep C, and so forth get passed around among users, those people have sex with people who have sex with other people. Viola, we have a drug problem and and AIDS epidemic.

 

[churchmouse]

There is no increase in use. Without needle exchanges, they just reuse needles. The difference is the public health problem that arises from reusing. HIV, Hep C, and so forth get passed around among users, those people have sex with people who have sex with other people. Viola, we have a drug problem and and AIDS epidemic.

Through in "Hep"

 

[Woobie]

I agree with all of your points save 1.....increased use. I have so little faith in the decision making ability's most of the populace exhibit these days.
Let me ask you this. How will these addicts pay for these program drugs. They will be doing as they do now......theft, deception, home invasion, convenient store robbery/murder. That end will not change at all. And to change that we will have to provide those individuals with the drugs. In that we are burdened as tax payers and brother I am here to tell you that aint gonna fly.

I know 1st hand how those lost souls operate. I have been 1st hand exposed. I have suffered at their deceit and complete lack of morel standards and honor.
This includes an already legal drug, Alcohol. It causes so much pain and suffering on its own. Thing is there is no war on Alcohol.

The latest to end their prohibition was Portrugal, I believe. They saw little to no increase in users. I don't know why it would be different here.

The price of drugs is massively inflated by the supply restriction and the expensive supply chain apparatus. There won't be a need to go to extremes to pay for what you can easily afford. We don't have a massive problem with alcoholics killing old people and stealing their brandy for a fix, because they can get what they need inexpensively through legitimate sources. I don't agree with it, and I think being drunk is a sin. But we tried to stop drinking once in this country too.

I sympathize with not wanting to buy drugs as a taxpayer. And I agree we shouldn't. But in a practical sense, it will still be cheaper than what we are doing now. We are not just providing drugs, but full health care to hundreds of thousands behind bars right now for drug offenses. I'm sure you don't like that any more than I do. I also don't like my tax dollars funding a war that props up murderous cartels. If that money must be spent, I'd rather it go to treatment than making a murderer rich.

 

[ATM]

See my tag line. I don't need to argue the merits of your libertarian philosophy further.

If you can't defend a statement, what compels you to state it?

Here's a tip: The statement is actually true, since vices are not crimes at all. Crimes committed while on drugs are not vices. Other, non-criminal consequences of drug use may or may not impact others and might even be tragic, while not being crimes.

There's actually much more to discuss, if you were able and willing.

His tag line is absolutely true.

As I explained, it's only technically true because I realize that vices are not crimes. For most, it would be false.

There are victims.

Yes, consequences of choices. What if we made everything that could have negative consequences illegal? Think about it.

Freedom can be argued in this but in the end when you are stepping on the rights and freedoms of others you have crossed the line.

Making dying illegal will not lead to anyone's immortality.

 

[ATM]

That logic is so convoluted as to be delusional.

Point out the logic failure in a targeted program aimed at reducing disease transmission.

(Aside from the obvious, that it is currently funded by government theft.)

 

[ruger1800]

​The state is responsible for this, the kid was their property.

 

[ATM]

​The state is responsible for this, the kid was their property.

Kids do belong to the State, no joke. We all do.