4 ms·

There should be no victimless crimes! This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here. This can be applied to se

There should be no victimless crimes! This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here. This can be applied to seatbelts, helmet laws, etc.

dEnigma 6y ago
I don't know. It could be traumatizing to kill someone in a rather unspectacular car crash just because they weren't using their seatbelt. Same for helmets.
- atom-morgan 6y ago
  The possibility of someone else's trauma shouldn't infringe on my freedom to ride a bike without a helmet.
  - dwater 6y ago
    You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      This is a disgusting comment.
      - platistocrates 6y ago
        Self referential comment.
    - nickff 6y ago
      This logic applies against all 'victimless' crimes, including drug possession & use.
      - on_and_off 6y ago
        not at all. Drug use has one victim : the user. Time and time again it has been shown that legalization and cure are far more efficient and cost less to society but still many countries cling to the idea that beating up somebody who is down will magically solve the problem.
        nickff 6y ago
        What about the family of the user? What about friends and relatives affected by a user's addiction? If you think the impact on a counterparty in a car accident should be taken into account, I would think family should be top-of-mind.
  - teawrecks 6y ago
    This comment is depressingly American.
    - atom-morgan 6y ago
      I mean why not make alcohol illegal because of the chance that it could negatively affect the people around you? That has a much higher likelihood than my not-wearing-a-helmet affecting someone else but very few people would support alcohol prohibition.
- acid__ 6y ago
  There's also the externality of increased load on emergency services and hospitals.
platistocrates 6y ago
There is no such thing as a victimless crime.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
sandworm101 6y ago
>> This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here People may think LSD or cocaine is all well and good, but there are far more dangerous substances out there. Things like Carfentanil need to be regulated. So too all the so-called "date rape" drugs. Just because some guy wants a powerful, tasteless, anesthetic that can be readily dissolved in water doesn't mean we should let him have it. Even if it has personal uses, the danger of such substances means they need controls.
- loceng 6y ago
  "Date rape" drugs seem rampant in certain communities but aren't used (hopefully) for rape but self-dosing at smaller amounts for their effects; regardless if they are legal or not the solution is the same: being safe in your behaviour and environment.
- marcrosoft 6y ago
  Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug. This same thinking was applied to LSD. “What if they put LSD in the water supply!”
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug. That was what the legal system did in the 18th century. It didn't work. Allowing people to buy poisons, weapons, even explosives and only punishing them once they harmed others has been deemed unacceptable. We now prevent crime by limiting access to such substances, hand in hand with governments licensing who may access them. Don't like not having access to something? Become a doctor/chemist/soldier/miner and you will be legally free to play around with all sorts of dangerous things.
    - marcrosoft 6y ago
      The problem with this logic as I see it is that you place the good/bad verdict in the hands of the gov. instead of the individual. An example that comes to mind is Redbull and strike anywhere matches are banned in several countries. Both of these substances have been shown to be used responsibly in the majority of other countries.
wyldfire 6y ago
As a practical matter, helmet and seatbelt laws are effective and drug prohibition is not.
xg15 6y ago
Did I miss an /s or are you seriously arguing against seatbelt and helmet laws?
- marcrosoft 6y ago
  Are you missing a /s? I’m simply arguing that individuals should have the freedom to choose.
  - xg15 6y ago
    In which situation would you legitimately not want to wear a seatbelt while driving? Will you also demand that individuals be capable of choosing - in that they have all the sufficient information to make an informed choice and are not manipulated by psychological tricks?
    - marcrosoft 6y ago
      In which situation would you legitimately not want to wear a seatbelt while driving? I can’t think of any. That doesn’t mean I would take that choice away from people that have a reason.

There should be no victimless crimes! This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here. This can be applied to seatbelts, helmet laws, etc.

dEnigma 6y ago

I don't know. It could be traumatizing to kill someone in a rather unspectacular car crash just because they weren't using their seatbelt. Same for helmets.

atom-morgan 6y ago
The possibility of someone else's trauma shouldn't infringe on my freedom to ride a bike without a helmet.
- dwater 6y ago
  You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    This is a disgusting comment.
    - platistocrates 6y ago
      Self referential comment.
  - nickff 6y ago
    This logic applies against all 'victimless' crimes, including drug possession & use.
    - on_and_off 6y ago
      not at all. Drug use has one victim : the user. Time and time again it has been shown that legalization and cure are far more efficient and cost less to society but still many countries cling to the idea that beating up somebody who is down will magically solve the problem.
      - nickff 6y ago
        What about the family of the user? What about friends and relatives affected by a user's addiction? If you think the impact on a counterparty in a car accident should be taken into account, I would think family should be top-of-mind.
- teawrecks 6y ago
  This comment is depressingly American.
  - atom-morgan 6y ago
    I mean why not make alcohol illegal because of the chance that it could negatively affect the people around you? That has a much higher likelihood than my not-wearing-a-helmet affecting someone else but very few people would support alcohol prohibition.
acid__ 6y ago
There's also the externality of increased load on emergency services and hospitals.

platistocrates 6y ago

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

ModernMech 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...

sandworm101 6y ago

>> This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here People may think LSD or cocaine is all well and good, but there are far more dangerous substances out there. Things like Carfentanil need to be regulated. So too all the so-called "date rape" drugs. Just because some guy wants a powerful, tasteless, anesthetic that can be readily dissolved in water doesn't mean we should let him have it. Even if it has personal uses, the danger of such substances means they need controls.

loceng 6y ago
"Date rape" drugs seem rampant in certain communities but aren't used (hopefully) for rape but self-dosing at smaller amounts for their effects; regardless if they are legal or not the solution is the same: being safe in your behaviour and environment.
marcrosoft 6y ago
Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug. This same thinking was applied to LSD. “What if they put LSD in the water supply!”
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug. That was what the legal system did in the 18th century. It didn't work. Allowing people to buy poisons, weapons, even explosives and only punishing them once they harmed others has been deemed unacceptable. We now prevent crime by limiting access to such substances, hand in hand with governments licensing who may access them. Don't like not having access to something? Become a doctor/chemist/soldier/miner and you will be legally free to play around with all sorts of dangerous things.
  - marcrosoft 6y ago
    The problem with this logic as I see it is that you place the good/bad verdict in the hands of the gov. instead of the individual. An example that comes to mind is Redbull and strike anywhere matches are banned in several countries. Both of these substances have been shown to be used responsibly in the majority of other countries.

wyldfire 6y ago

As a practical matter, helmet and seatbelt laws are effective and drug prohibition is not.

xg15 6y ago

Did I miss an /s or are you seriously arguing against seatbelt and helmet laws?

marcrosoft 6y ago
Are you missing a /s? I’m simply arguing that individuals should have the freedom to choose.
- xg15 6y ago
  In which situation would you legitimately not want to wear a seatbelt while driving? Will you also demand that individuals be capable of choosing - in that they have all the sufficient information to make an informed choice and are not manipulated by psychological tricks?
  - marcrosoft 6y ago
    In which situation would you legitimately not want to wear a seatbelt while driving? I can’t think of any. That doesn’t mean I would take that choice away from people that have a reason.