4 ms·

> to at least be consistent. No not be a total joke as a gov't. I love the stories on "refer scare" and the prohibition (which has become some big historical p

by cies 5y ago

> to at least be consistent. No not be a total joke as a gov't. I love the stories on "refer scare" and the prohibition (which has become some big historical period like the renaissance, merely by retarded gov't policy). And not like we're done with it. New Zealand is considering to ban tobacco sales to the next generation. What could probably go wrong with that? Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? (this is not about prohibiting sales to kids -- which im cool with obviously -- but also to adults of the next generations, when they are of age).

cies 5y ago
We need a constitutional law prohibiting all victimless crime or this insanity will never end.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Most victimless crimes have victims, they’re just hard to singularly identify.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    No. Not even close. Most victimless crimes have literally no victim. There is no victim without some sort of harm. The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal is because if you go overboard enough with them there is a high likelihood of harm. In the vast majority of cases people don't go overboard and there is no actual victim though. These things are crimes because our system of justice is not good at punishing people for "going overboard" with the consistency and fairness we desire.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 5y ago
      While I disagree with some victimless crimes, like drug possession, victimless crimes that put others at risk does victimize them. It’s the reason that shooting a shotgun down a busy street is (and should be) a crime even if you don’t hit anyone. Also, many violations of regulatory requirements are “victimless” but are entirely necessary cooperation for things to work properly, or to prevent consequential harm. Particularly for things where shared resources are used, like spectrum, roads, airports, the air we breathe, etc. Who is hurt when I blow a little bit of lead dust into the air? Probably no one, and certainly nobody identifiable. Who is hurt when everyone blows lead dust in the air? Potentially many, and still likely unidentifiable.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        You aren't getting it. Who does the bare risk itself victimize? Where is the damage? The risk is just that, a risk. There's a chance it may go bad and a chance that it may not. The risk produces no damage, no victim. But in sufficient quantity the bad outcome will happen enough to be worth making the activity is not allowed. Normally we prohibit the bad outcome but for some highly subjective cases we have to just draw a somewhat arbitrary line.
        kube-system 5y ago
        Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. When it is trivial to identify a single person who is exposed to the risk, we don't call it "victimless", we call it "endangerment". Why, when an act exposes multiple unnamed people to a risk, do some call it a "victimless" crime? Just because it's difficult to identify those exposed to a risk doesn't mean that people haven't been placed at risk.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. If you share the road with a drunk driver but they crash into someone else are you a victim? Does their insurer compensate you? Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. If your brother takes opiods but stops you are not a victim. If your bother takes opiods, gets addicted and ruins your family then you are. Shooting a gun in the air, speeding, all sorts of unsafe things can have no victim, or they can have a victim depending on how things go. We don't criminalize these things because they have victims when you do them right. They are usually victimless. We criminalize them because there's too much luck involved and we don't like the odds.
        kube-system 5y ago
        > Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. Crimes of endangerment are an exact counterpoint to this. They often do have identifiable victims, in a way that most people would agree.
    - cies 5y ago
      > The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal Are very different reasons. Drugs are illegal because of big alc biz lobby, religious interference and orchestrated mass hysteria. The effect: the police can target any group, search them hard and lock some up because "drug". If the police would search hard in Beverly Hills they'd also find a lot, but they choose not to. It gives the police the power to hurt any group they choose because we all do drugs. Speeding is an offense because it causes harm to others in some cases. Also there is an environmental impact. You choose to roll your car in public roads, you need a license, a proper car and to follow the rules. Cars can be seriously dangerous for other people on the roads. And it is in most cases "an offense"! Not a crime. You get a fine, not a jail sentence.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
The only reason tobacco isn't banned straight up is it would cause untold disruption in the older addicted population. By banning sales to younger people, they are trying to prevent the next generation from becoming addicted, reducing the impact a future complete ban would cause. It's a temporary solution that will eventually lead to total ban.
josephcsible 5y ago
> Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? Hasn't society already decided a while ago that, for some reason, age discrimination is okay as long as it's only against younger people?
- cies 5y ago
  Different law fir children/elderly/childbearing are not the same as saying a whole generation (no matter how old) cannot do something. Please re-read my comment and see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775
Spivak 5y ago
> Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? This line of reasoning doesn't capture any nuance. These kinds of things operate on an allowlist. Unless there is a law enacted specifically as an exception then no, in general age discrimination is not okay. Voting, alcohol, weed, driving, truancy, parental control, marriage, consent for sex, contract law, criminal law, social security, retirement accounts, and military service all discriminate based on age despite it being the guiding principle that you should avoid using age for restrictions when possible. The law has plenty of examples of min and max ages. If there was any other way to ban cigarettes without making life miserable for people who are currently addicted? Because we should absolutely ban cigarettes. The victim is the cigarette smoker and the crime is the manufacture and sale of a an addictive substance that it not safe to use in any amount. I agree with you that a law making it illegal for people to smoke is silly, the law should apply to manufacturers and distributors.
- cies 5y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775 please see this. it is not protecting children, it is excluding a generation (no matter how old)

by cies 5y ago

cies 5y ago

We need a constitutional law prohibiting all victimless crime or this insanity will never end.

kube-system 5y ago
Most victimless crimes have victims, they’re just hard to singularly identify.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  No. Not even close. Most victimless crimes have literally no victim. There is no victim without some sort of harm. The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal is because if you go overboard enough with them there is a high likelihood of harm. In the vast majority of cases people don't go overboard and there is no actual victim though. These things are crimes because our system of justice is not good at punishing people for "going overboard" with the consistency and fairness we desire.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 5y ago
    While I disagree with some victimless crimes, like drug possession, victimless crimes that put others at risk does victimize them. It’s the reason that shooting a shotgun down a busy street is (and should be) a crime even if you don’t hit anyone. Also, many violations of regulatory requirements are “victimless” but are entirely necessary cooperation for things to work properly, or to prevent consequential harm. Particularly for things where shared resources are used, like spectrum, roads, airports, the air we breathe, etc. Who is hurt when I blow a little bit of lead dust into the air? Probably no one, and certainly nobody identifiable. Who is hurt when everyone blows lead dust in the air? Potentially many, and still likely unidentifiable.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      You aren't getting it. Who does the bare risk itself victimize? Where is the damage? The risk is just that, a risk. There's a chance it may go bad and a chance that it may not. The risk produces no damage, no victim. But in sufficient quantity the bad outcome will happen enough to be worth making the activity is not allowed. Normally we prohibit the bad outcome but for some highly subjective cases we have to just draw a somewhat arbitrary line.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. When it is trivial to identify a single person who is exposed to the risk, we don't call it "victimless", we call it "endangerment". Why, when an act exposes multiple unnamed people to a risk, do some call it a "victimless" crime? Just because it's difficult to identify those exposed to a risk doesn't mean that people haven't been placed at risk.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. If you share the road with a drunk driver but they crash into someone else are you a victim? Does their insurer compensate you? Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. If your brother takes opiods but stops you are not a victim. If your bother takes opiods, gets addicted and ruins your family then you are. Shooting a gun in the air, speeding, all sorts of unsafe things can have no victim, or they can have a victim depending on how things go. We don't criminalize these things because they have victims when you do them right. They are usually victimless. We criminalize them because there's too much luck involved and we don't like the odds.
        kube-system 5y ago
        > Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You need to actually be harmed. Crimes of endangerment are an exact counterpoint to this. They often do have identifiable victims, in a way that most people would agree.
  - cies 5y ago
    > The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal Are very different reasons. Drugs are illegal because of big alc biz lobby, religious interference and orchestrated mass hysteria. The effect: the police can target any group, search them hard and lock some up because "drug". If the police would search hard in Beverly Hills they'd also find a lot, but they choose not to. It gives the police the power to hurt any group they choose because we all do drugs. Speeding is an offense because it causes harm to others in some cases. Also there is an environmental impact. You choose to roll your car in public roads, you need a license, a proper car and to follow the rules. Cars can be seriously dangerous for other people on the roads. And it is in most cases "an offense"! Not a crime. You get a fine, not a jail sentence.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

The only reason tobacco isn't banned straight up is it would cause untold disruption in the older addicted population. By banning sales to younger people, they are trying to prevent the next generation from becoming addicted, reducing the impact a future complete ban would cause. It's a temporary solution that will eventually lead to total ban.

josephcsible 5y ago

> Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? Hasn't society already decided a while ago that, for some reason, age discrimination is okay as long as it's only against younger people?

cies 5y ago
Different law fir children/elderly/childbearing are not the same as saying a whole generation (no matter how old) cannot do something. Please re-read my comment and see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775

Spivak 5y ago

> Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay? This line of reasoning doesn't capture any nuance. These kinds of things operate on an allowlist. Unless there is a law enacted specifically as an exception then no, in general age discrimination is not okay. Voting, alcohol, weed, driving, truancy, parental control, marriage, consent for sex, contract law, criminal law, social security, retirement accounts, and military service all discriminate based on age despite it being the guiding principle that you should avoid using age for restrictions when possible. The law has plenty of examples of min and max ages. If there was any other way to ban cigarettes without making life miserable for people who are currently addicted? Because we should absolutely ban cigarettes. The victim is the cigarette smoker and the crime is the manufacture and sale of a an addictive substance that it not safe to use in any amount. I agree with you that a law making it illegal for people to smoke is silly, the law should apply to manufacturers and distributors.

cies 5y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59589775 please see this. it is not protecting children, it is excluding a generation (no matter how old)