Poll: Victimless crime.

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Wow, I never knew most cannabis users got their drugs like. I thought the vast majority bought it from dealers (or from someone who bought it from a dealer), thus supporting organised crime and smuggling.

It is irrelevant what "most people" do, since even if I grow my own cannabis and only use it myself I would be punish the exact same way as those who acquire their drugs through the way where they support different criminal organizations, despite the fact that im doing nothing tangible at all that can be traced to actually support crime.

Proving in fact that smoking weed can most certainly be a victimless crime, regarldess of what "most people" do. Because courts aren't charged with debating aboput what "most people" do, they are supposed to try the case of the individual perpetrator of any given "crime".

Yes alcohol is damaging. If alcohol never existed until last week they would test it, find the effects horrible then ban it. In the UK we have a christian culture and alcohol is part of that. Its too late to ban it now, despite the harm.

So what you're saying is that if enough people came out of the closet and admitted that they smoke cannabis, the state would have no choice but to legalize it since it is evidently "too late" to try and ban it, and the ban itself is proven to be ineffective and far from in accordance with the will of the people in general?

Let's face it now shall we. Maintaining this ban is just a damaging and hurtful way of sweeping the truth under the rug. It doesn't solve anything and it is far from in accordance with the will of the people... You know that pesky mob that the government is supposed to be serving and listen to.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No. There has to be a victim for something to be a crime. What people call victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

Funnily enough, the law disagrees with you since plenty of people are being charged as criminals despite the fact that what they are guilty of doing have no victims at all.

 

[Kair]

No. There has to be a victim for something to be a crime. What people call victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

Funnily enough, the law disagrees with you since plenty of people are being charged as criminals despite the fact that what they are guilty of doing have no victims at all.

The law in many situations disagrees with common sense.

 

[iLikeHippos]

First of all, if I painted a portrait (which I actually have done in the past since i am an artist by hobby) I would paint the portrait simply for the sake of painting a portrait. That's what artistry is about.

The idea that making art somehow entitles you a profit is a capitalist idea that has nothing to do with art in the first place, invented by people who found out ways to profit mostly from other peoples artistic abilities.

An artist makes art for the sake of making art, not to make money. It's that simple. And if you as an artist have gone into artistry with the hope to make money, then perhaps it would be wise to change your career into something that's actually about making money.

But even if I didn't, it would be foolish of me to expect that I could OWN the actual experience of that portrait when I do such a dumb fucking thing as putting it out on public display. Sure I might be able to still claim ownership of the canvas, the frame and the paint, but once I decide to show my work to other people the very EXPERIENCE that the painting conveys by seeing it no longer belongs to me any more, because I have already given it away for free by letting it become a part of other peoples memories.

The very sight of it has already touched them, and some of them might even have photographic memories so they never need to look at it again (or paying for being able to do so) since they can recall it in perfact detail in their mind anyway.

So if I actually wanted to claim ownership of a particular work of art, the only sensible thing to do would be to only expose myself to it and keep it hidden and locked up from the rest of the world, never revealing it to anyone (something I actually do on many occasions since only about 5 % of my art is actually something I feel like sharing with others, while I keep the rest of it private and purely for my own satisfaction).

So ultimately, making a fuss about people taking pictures and copying my work, is basically making a fuss over something which have already occured the moment I decided to put up my work on public display. Making the bitching and moaning about someone snapping a picture with a camera for future reference a very trivial kind of bitching and moaning.

So your argument doesn't work on me, and the people that it might work on aren't artists really. They are "money makers", and since that is evidently their main passion in life, I suggest that they change careers into one that is more effective at making money than trying to "earn a living" through such a dirt poor and for most of the time COSTLY profession as being an artist.

Making money and becoming filthy rich through purely artistic pursuits (regardless if you sing, play instruments, draw, paint, whatever) isn't a right, it is a privilige that only a small number of fortunate people manage to achieve. This is something that this naive, pseudo-capitalist and "American Idol"-programmed generation needs to understand and grow the fuck up...

It was only an example for explaining just how someone can become a victim of pirating.

But it might just had been a poor example since the interest of making money wasn't just there.

Doesn't mean you can disregard the other people who are "money makers" and are trying their very best to hang on with their dreams though.
I am sure that any person who finds their dream wishes to stick to it, and by pirating you're not really helping.

And by pirating, those "money makers" become the victims. You could suggest that they change their jobs, sure. But that is just like saying "If you don't like it, leave" which is such a dick move, really. I can't help but get frustrated when that line comes up.
Bugs the shit out of me...

And that is basically my point. There is a victim if the persons first intention was making money. If they are as artist-minded as you though (Not intended as an insult), than there really is no problem with the pirating.

Otherwise... Yeah... Problem for the producer...

 

[Mr Smith]

If drinking while underage by one day isn'y really a crime, why not make it two days? Three? How about a week? A month? Six months? A year? Two years? Several?

Arbitrary "legal ages" can seem, well, arbitrary, but they're unambiguous. They set a clear point so people can judge one way or another and everybody is on the same page. It's true that some can handle their drink befire being of age, while others can't even many years after. The law can't be individualy tailored for each and every person in each and every circumstance. So, to get society on the same wavelength, arbitrary points are chosen as a guide to clarify things.

As for loitering: who's loitering? Where are they loitering? Why are they there? For what purpose? What effect is it having on others there? What effect is it having on business? Are they causing trouble? Could they cause trouble? Are they making people uncomfortable? Are they hastling people? While there may not be a particular victim, it is a law set in place for the benefit of society, as most laws are.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The law in many situations disagrees with common sense.

Common sense doesn't really exist, since sense is very much subjective and can't reasonably be seen as "common" in any situation really.

What I find more troubling however is the fact that the law, in some situations has taken it upon itself to ignore the general will of the public... Even in societies claiming to be "democratic".

I mean, if we take the crime of murder for instance, a majority of the population in pretty much any country can see why it is reasonable for it to be illegal and actually agrees with the motivation of i being illegal... After all, few people wish to be killed by other people, thus it wouldn't really be right for society to permit people to kill other people for arbitrary reasons.

But when it comes to other forms of "crime", like smoking weed for instance, the general opinion isn't equally clear cut and united at all. But the law doesn't care. In fact, the law doesn't even bother to ask.

Yet still these societies maintain that they are "democracies".

But I guess you can see whatever you wish to see when you've got your head buried in the sand.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

See:

All laws related to drugs or prostitution.

Oh, and a lot of places around the world still have sodomy laws, making homosexuality a crime. If there is a victim of homosexuality, I've yet to find one.

 

[Goth Skunk]

I abhor the term 'victimless crime,' but that's because it's a matter of personal opinion. I believe that if a 'crime' has taken place, but there is no apparent victim, then no wrong has been done, regardless of what has taken place. The person on trial should then be immediately released and compensated for time wasted.

No victim, no crime. Period. Unfortunately our society doesn't work that way, and it's a crying shame.

 

[teisjm]

well, most drug-imbibing cases are "victimless," mostly because you are your own victim and you have your own consent (i hope). i don't see the harm in legalizing drugs, or at least looking the other way.

This.

If people steal or get violent when on drugs (or drunk or just cause they're tards) it's not the drugs that IMO should be a crime, but the actual act of violence or theft.

In some parts of the world, sex bewteen two people who are not husbond and wife or something like that are illegal, and i don't really see any victims involved in that (appart from "victims" who'se significant otehr cheats on them with someone else, but thats a relationship issue IMO, not a crime)

And given that answer, yes there are victimless crimes, and even though they're victimless they're still crimes cause they're punishable by the law.

And yes i think victimless crimes should be legalized. It's a stupid system.

 

[WaffleGod]

Underage drinking is basically harmless. In my country people can drink when they hit the age of 16. IMO, that's just fine. Drinking when you're 15 or 16 is nothing but normal. However, seeing a 12 year old nearly drinking himself into a coma and then seeing him puke on the floor and piss all over himself just isn't right, and then I realise why there are laws like this.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It was only an example for explaining just how someone can become a victim of pirating.

I disgree, and im going to tell you why.

Doesn't mean you can disregard the other people who are "money makers" and are trying their very best to hang on with their dreams though.
I am sure that any person who finds their dream wishes to stick to it, and by pirating you're not really helping.

The thing is, it is not the obligation of any single society or individual to actively work towards making other people achieve their "dreams".

For instance, I have a dream of instigating World War 3 and destroying about 95 percent of the human population on earth in the process. Now, most people wouldn't want to help me in this endavour, also a lot of people would actively try to stop me from succeeding with this dream of mine. Does that make me a "victim"? Does that make the people trying to stop me "criminals"?

Because, essentially the situation is exactly the same as with your example about artists only in it for the money. They have a "dream" about becoming filthy rich or earning a living through their art alone, yet some people don't feel like that's a reasonable dream to have, nor do they have any obligation or wish to help contribute to that dream either.

My point is, just because someone has a dream, it doesn't mean that everyon is obliged to play along and help make that dream a reality. And if you refuse to give up ridiculously lofty goals and dreams like that in favour of more reasonable and pragmatic ones then, it is YOU who are victimizing YOURSELF, not the people who just don't feel like playing along with your childish idealism.

Thus I find your conclusion that the "criminals" in this particular instance would be guilty of "victimizing" someone to be in error.

And by pirating, those "money makers" become the victims. You could suggest that they change their jobs, sure. But that is just like saying "If you don't like it, leave" which is such a dick move, really. I can't help but get frustrated when that line comes up.
Bugs the shit out of me...

It's not a dick move. It's one of the most reasonable suggestions there is. What's unreasonable however is demanding that other people should stick to playing according to YOUR rules all the time and start bitching and moaning about the people that don't feel obliged to do so.

It is also a matter of priorities and the "victims" ridiculous demand that they should be able to eat the cookie and still have it.

It is up to them to prioritize wht it is they actually want. Do they want to make money and earn a living first and foremost, or do they want to be famous artists? Sometimes you can't have both, and it isn't anyones "right" to have both at the same time. Thus a person has to learn to prioritize and maybe find a way to eventually have both. For instance, one could spend a few years making enough money to live off through purely money making pursuits, while during the next period devoting their life to become famous despite not having a regular source of income during that time.

But demanding and feeling entitled to payment when you're essentially trying to devote your time producing something that the world doesn't really "need" (no, as a matter of fact, it isn't vital to mankinds survival to have yet another fucking album from Britney Spears or another MMORPG from Blizzard) is just plain childish, and by passing laws and enforcing laws that basically enforce those childish demands and sense of entitlement just lets these people keep on living in a dream world where they never have to grow up and learn to prioritize like the rest of us.

And that is basically my point. There is a victim if the persons first intention was making money. If they are as artist-minded as you though (Not intended as an insult), than there really is no problem with the pirating.

When the victim becomes a victim more due to said victims self-victimization rather than the "crime" itself, I don't see how your point carries much merit. Sorry...

 

[Otterpoet]

There are no victimless crimes. Even loitering requires the police to waste their time dealing with the moron standing with his thumb up his ass when they could be out helping a useful member of society. And why? Because most people casing a house/store/etc loiter before committing a serious crime. Strangely enough, cops don't have a crystal ball to tell the difference between a thief and some mental midget with nothing better to do.

Drug-imbibing cases aren't victimless either... just last month some stoner here burned down his apartment, along with the complex it was attached to. I'm pretty sure the people that lost all their possessions didn't consider themselves 'victimless.'

And underage drinking? Well, I've taken pictures of enough human grease-spots on the highway to know that isn't true. Regrettably, these losers rarely kill just themselves.

Unfortunately, people are so short-sighted and self-absorbed these days that they can't see the consequences of their actions; even ones that would appear benign.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

If people steal or get violent when on drugs (or drunk or just cause they're tards) it's not the drugs that IMO should be a crime, but the actual act of violence or theft.

Precisely.

And in a way, aren't we relieveing accountable people of their responsibility for their actions by illegalizing something that doesn't necessarily provide the actual source for violence or theft?

I mean by saying "Cannabis should be illegal because it makes people violent and makes them steal things"? Then is it really reasonable to hold people evidently guilty of violence and theft accountable for those crimes if they can prove that they were under the influence of active substances from the cannabis plant at the time?

It wouldn't be. Thus im rather for laws that makes people take responsibility for their actions, isntead of hypocritically relieving them of it.

We should make people take responsibility for their drug usage, and educating them about what types of effects that can come from drug usage, instead of simply forbidding them from it completely.

Seems a lot more reasonable thing to do, in my opinion...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Drug-imbibing cases aren't victimless either... just last month some stoner here burned down his apartment, along with the complex it was attached to. I'm pretty sure the people that lost all their possessions didn't consider themselves 'victimless.'

That doesn't prove that drug imbibing ISN'T a victimless crime. It just proves that ARSON certainly isn't a victimless crime. And no one in this thread has tried to suggest that arson isn't a victimles crime, so...

 

[Tharwen]

Laws aren't definite. They don't define a victim. They just state what a group of people believes everyone else should or shouldn't do.

 

[Otterpoet]

Drug-imbibing cases aren't victimless either... just last month some stoner here burned down his apartment, along with the complex it was attached to. I'm pretty sure the people that lost all their possessions didn't consider themselves 'victimless.'

That doesn't prove that drug imbibing ISN'T a victimless crime. It just proves that ARSON certainly isn't a victimless crime. And no one in this thread has tried to suggest that arson isn't a victimles crime, so...

It wasn't arson. Arson is a deliberate act. He burned down his apartment because he was so stoned that he dropped his joint into the couch and allowed it to burn. If he hadn't been doing drugs, it wouldn't have happened.

And that's just the result of drug use. We won't even go into ramifications of the drug trade, which is required to get the drugs into the hands of these idiots.

 

[C95J]

I guess. He makes a pretty good point with underage drinking.

Isn't the person who is doing the drinking the victim (I don't know if that really counts but I think it does).

As for loitering it would be the people or businesses around the person that is loitering...

but honestly I don't have a clue. If there wasn't a victim or someone at risk then it wouldn't be a crime wouldn't it? It has to be crime for a reason.

Actually, I think the underage drinker is the offender. But I'm not sure who is being offended. Hence, a victimless crime.

victim meaning he is the one who is getting hurt in the progress and is only putting himself in danger.

 

[zhoominator]

But demanding and feeling entitled to payment when you're essentially trying to devote your time producing something that the world doesn't really "need" (no, as a matter of fact, it isn't vital to mankinds survival to have yet another fucking album from Britney Spears or another MMORPG from Blizzard) is just plain childish, and by passing laws and enforcing laws that basically enforce those childish demands and sense of entitlement just lets these people keep on living in a dream world where they never have to grow up and learn to prioritize like the rest of us.

Ah, I understand. You don't feel that people should charge people for selling things that are the product of their hard work or graft because they don't "need" it. Well have you not considered that the people producing the products may be doing so because they NEED the money.

You're just another person who feels entitled to take whatever they want. Yes, you're far more of a self entitled fuck than the person who produces a product TO SURVIVE. Of course, maybe we should just get rid of entertainment altogether since they obviously don't deserve to get paid for their work. I think we should dispose of all music, tv and games of those who don't want to have any money to teach you selfish digusting fucks a lesson. Lets see you survive then, asshole.

And by your logic, makking fraudulant money isn't a victimless crime either. You don't have any understanding of economics, do you?