3 ms·

> Even if one agrees this is true, that doesn't mean that they aren't also victims of drug prohibition. Every criminal is a victim of the system, then. Had sex

by ythl 10y ago

> Even if one agrees this is true, that doesn't mean that they aren't also victims of drug prohibition. Every criminal is a victim of the system, then. Had sex with a minor and now you are in jail? You're a victim of sexual prohibition.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> > Even if one agrees this is true, that doesn't mean that they aren't also victims of drug prohibition. > Every criminal is a victim of the system, then. That does not follow; for instance, if one views someone as a "victim" of prohibition only when the harms done to them by prohibition (whether directly through punishment, or indirectly through costs and harms they bear only because of prohibition) are disproportionate to the harms prevented thereby, one can easily view drug users as victims of prohibition but not generally view, e.g., those involved in crimes of violence against other persons as victims of prohibition of those acts of violence.
logfromblammo 10y ago
The system doesn't need to be simplified quite that far before going to ridiculous. Statutory rape and/or child abuse has a victim that is identifiable and distinct from the offender. The presumed harm done to the victim (and the class represented by the victim) goes so far beyond available civil remedies that the state pursues additional criminal punishment both to dissuade others from doing similar things, and to dissuade vigilantism and other extralegal retribution. We have a malum in se crime, an evil in itself. For such crimes, the state may put you in jail not just to make an example and to keep you from re-offending, but also to keep the minor's family from putting you into an unmarked shallow grave, at 2 AM during a new moon, with a strong false alibi. The person who possesses, uses, or trades contraband offends only the state, which in a republic is not embodied in an individual, nor entirely distinct from the offender. Thus drug prohibition is a malum prohibitum crime, an evil just because someone said so. For the most part, no one cares if you smoke weed or not, unless you show up to work too stoned to do your own job, and then they only care because they might have to do some of your job in addition to their own. If you throw the offender in prison, that's a shame, because that guy is now doing 0% of their work, and their co-workers are now picking up 100% of the slack, until a replacement can be hired. If you don't go to prison, and don't miss work, the only ones you really harm are Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Jack Daniels, and Jim Beam, because the money you spend on weed cannot also be spent on tobacco and booze, and that is merely the sting from additional competition.
- ythl 10y ago
  > The person who possesses, uses, or trades contraband offends only the state So are we pretending things that like DUI manslaughter, second-hand cancer, theft/robbery to pay for more drugs, etc. are unrelated crimes?
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Are we pretending that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy? If a crime has multiple contributing factors, that does not necessarily make any of those factors a crime in itself. One might as well say that because murder with a firearm is a crime, that possession of bullets should also be considered criminal. It is perfectly reasonable to say that crimes may be related to non-crimes. But in our system, the crime should be defined by objective criteria, or elements, such that a judge and jury can determine whether they exist or not based on evidence and testimony. And while is it possible to define a crime without a victim's complaint as an element, my own opinion is that such laws should be relatively rare, or severely limited in their application and scope.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Unrelated to what? I mean, the last is obviously fairly directly exacerbated by drug prohibition, so its certainly "related" to prohibition, but I don't see how that helps your apparent pro-prohibition position...
  - Malician 10y ago
    If I drive drunk, I put others at unavoidable risk. I don't smoke weed. If I do smoke weed, in what way am I causing comparable harm to others? How is it reasonable to threaten me with criminal penalties? Is that good for society!?

by ythl 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> > Even if one agrees this is true, that doesn't mean that they aren't also victims of drug prohibition. > Every criminal is a victim of the system, then. That does not follow; for instance, if one views someone as a "victim" of prohibition only when the harms done to them by prohibition (whether directly through punishment, or indirectly through costs and harms they bear only because of prohibition) are disproportionate to the harms prevented thereby, one can easily view drug users as victims of prohibition but not generally view, e.g., those involved in crimes of violence against other persons as victims of prohibition of those acts of violence.

logfromblammo 10y ago

The system doesn't need to be simplified quite that far before going to ridiculous. Statutory rape and/or child abuse has a victim that is identifiable and distinct from the offender. The presumed harm done to the victim (and the class represented by the victim) goes so far beyond available civil remedies that the state pursues additional criminal punishment both to dissuade others from doing similar things, and to dissuade vigilantism and other extralegal retribution. We have a malum in se crime, an evil in itself. For such crimes, the state may put you in jail not just to make an example and to keep you from re-offending, but also to keep the minor's family from putting you into an unmarked shallow grave, at 2 AM during a new moon, with a strong false alibi. The person who possesses, uses, or trades contraband offends only the state, which in a republic is not embodied in an individual, nor entirely distinct from the offender. Thus drug prohibition is a malum prohibitum crime, an evil just because someone said so. For the most part, no one cares if you smoke weed or not, unless you show up to work too stoned to do your own job, and then they only care because they might have to do some of your job in addition to their own. If you throw the offender in prison, that's a shame, because that guy is now doing 0% of their work, and their co-workers are now picking up 100% of the slack, until a replacement can be hired. If you don't go to prison, and don't miss work, the only ones you really harm are Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Jack Daniels, and Jim Beam, because the money you spend on weed cannot also be spent on tobacco and booze, and that is merely the sting from additional competition.

ythl 10y ago
> The person who possesses, uses, or trades contraband offends only the state So are we pretending things that like DUI manslaughter, second-hand cancer, theft/robbery to pay for more drugs, etc. are unrelated crimes?
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Are we pretending that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is not a fallacy? If a crime has multiple contributing factors, that does not necessarily make any of those factors a crime in itself. One might as well say that because murder with a firearm is a crime, that possession of bullets should also be considered criminal. It is perfectly reasonable to say that crimes may be related to non-crimes. But in our system, the crime should be defined by objective criteria, or elements, such that a judge and jury can determine whether they exist or not based on evidence and testimony. And while is it possible to define a crime without a victim's complaint as an element, my own opinion is that such laws should be relatively rare, or severely limited in their application and scope.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Unrelated to what? I mean, the last is obviously fairly directly exacerbated by drug prohibition, so its certainly "related" to prohibition, but I don't see how that helps your apparent pro-prohibition position...
- Malician 10y ago
  If I drive drunk, I put others at unavoidable risk. I don't smoke weed. If I do smoke weed, in what way am I causing comparable harm to others? How is it reasonable to threaten me with criminal penalties? Is that good for society!?