12 ms·

Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims. For example: if A shoots heroin it does not make other people addicts. Your ca

Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims. For example: if A shoots heroin it does not make other people addicts. Your case does imply possible victims this therefore it is an incorrect analogy.

chasing 7y ago
What if the money I spend on heroin helps make the heroin industry financially viable? What if my overdose winds up costing a ton of money in medical fees? What if I die and my mother is overwhelmed with grief? What if addiction causes me to lose my job and I'm forced to steal from a grocery store to survive? What if addiction makes me completely vulnerable to people willing to exploit that addiction for their own gain?
- mikestew 7y ago
  What if it were all true? It would still be a victimless crime. As I understand it, those are secondary effects of what is still a victimless crime. I believe this also reduces the need for any further what-iffing.
  - chasing 7y ago
    wetpaws wrote: "Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims." I posited some indirect victims. Maybe my point is that reality is way more complex than just "no victim, no crime."
- imtringued 7y ago
  Ok, we will lock up all the addicts so mom doesn't have to be sad.
  - chasing 7y ago
    You read this thread and that’s the argument you thought I was making? Or did you just think that was a saucy zinger to aim at me? If it’s the former, reply and I’ll clarify my point. I definitely do not agree with what you wrote.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  What if drug use was strongly correlated to homelessness?
wetpaws 7y ago
I should've mention beforehead that no indirect victims means that all parties involved are _consent_. Because we live in a world where it is impossible to fully _not_ affect anyone directly or indirectly, by victims we should understand any party that has an injury caused by our actions and can claim it (but please note again that we expect all the parties involved to be consent) Before folks would diving into the depths of sophism I would suggest to refer to the Wiki article that explains this in better details. Secondarily, appealing to the moral aspect of this problem is meaningless, because again, we are talking about it strictly in a legal sense.

chasing 7y ago

What if the money I spend on heroin helps make the heroin industry financially viable? What if my overdose winds up costing a ton of money in medical fees? What if I die and my mother is overwhelmed with grief? What if addiction causes me to lose my job and I'm forced to steal from a grocery store to survive? What if addiction makes me completely vulnerable to people willing to exploit that addiction for their own gain?

mikestew 7y ago
What if it were all true? It would still be a victimless crime. As I understand it, those are secondary effects of what is still a victimless crime. I believe this also reduces the need for any further what-iffing.
- chasing 7y ago
  wetpaws wrote: "Victimless crime imply that the action would have no direct or indirect victims." I posited some indirect victims. Maybe my point is that reality is way more complex than just "no victim, no crime."
imtringued 7y ago
Ok, we will lock up all the addicts so mom doesn't have to be sad.
- chasing 7y ago
  You read this thread and that’s the argument you thought I was making? Or did you just think that was a saucy zinger to aim at me? If it’s the former, reply and I’ll clarify my point. I definitely do not agree with what you wrote.
RickJWagner 7y ago
What if drug use was strongly correlated to homelessness?

wetpaws 7y ago

I should've mention beforehead that no indirect victims means that all parties involved are _consent_. Because we live in a world where it is impossible to fully _not_ affect anyone directly or indirectly, by victims we should understand any party that has an injury caused by our actions and can claim it (but please note again that we expect all the parties involved to be consent) Before folks would diving into the depths of sophism I would suggest to refer to the Wiki article that explains this in better details. Secondarily, appealing to the moral aspect of this problem is meaningless, because again, we are talking about it strictly in a legal sense.