6 ms·

Wikipedia has some good examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime Definitions differ person to pe

Wikipedia has some good examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime Definitions differ person to person, but many things we consider benign today like sexual activities between consenting adults, racial integration, even free travel have at times and in places been considered crimes. Today, homelessness is often criminalized. As is drug use even among otherwise productive law abiding citizens. Assisted suicide is often criminalized, even for terminally ill and suffering consenting adults.

1718627440 1y ago
I think it really depends on what you consider to be a victimless crime. I think nobody considers the same thing both to be a crime and a victimless crime. For example the article discusses adultery. There is obviously a third person harmed there, it only matters whether you care about that enough. Same with drug use. Drug use forces people to do other crimes and also invites people to take drugs that wouldn't otherwise, whether you consider these to be victims is on you of course.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  > Drug use forces people to do other crimes Something like 98% of humanity partakes of caffeine which is very clearly an addictive drug with one of the higher measures of addictive potential among all drugs in most evaluations. Drug use isn't what drives people to commit crime. Lack of support systems do. Drug use is often a coping mechanism associated with lack of support systems. This is very clearly articulated in the following study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/98787/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/98787/ To quote John Ehrlichman, Whitehouse counsel and assistant to President Nixon: “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities” Disrupted communities lack support systems and further drive folks to criminality as a means of surviving. Meanwhile, many of the founding fathers and modern political leaders have writtten quite fondly and positively about smoking cannabis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_have_acknowledged_cannabis_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politici... > For example the article discusses adultery Homosexuality and sodomy (i.e. sex without the intent of procreation) are clearer examples of criminalized sexual behavior between two consenting adults. I know some folks who'd like to outlaw them today in the US and they are currently outlawed elsewhere, but I believe what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > caffeine Not all drugs are created equal, withdrawal symptoms are different. > Homosexuality and sodomy They do affect the future population count and this will affect the pension of everyone. They also will result in persons not being born. You can say that this is way less of importance then the right to do whatever you want, but it is not without effect to others.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > Not all drugs are created equal, withdrawal symptoms are different. Not in my experience. I have voluntarily withdrawn from caffeine, opiates (administered by a hospital), and cannabis. All experiences were remarkably similar. When I run support groups for folks who've used drugs, I recommend folks experiment with caffeine withdrawal to gain experience with the process. It requires at least two weeks of cessation. > They do affect the future population count Seems that you're assuming homosexual folks would otherwise procreate if forced into heterosexual relationships, which is quite a stretch. I also know quite a few homosexual couples who raise scads of children. And childless heterosexual couples. This argument doesn't hold water.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        > All experiences were remarkably similar. Cool, my decision to not use caffeine is justified then.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business :) Victimless as it were. That said, should you find yourself in a health emergency, as I did, and hooked up to a dilaudid drip for weeks, as I was, you may find experience with the symptoms of withdrawal to be quite useful for getting yourself through the worst of it, as I did. Withdrawal is part of the human experience you don't always have a choice to avoid. Fear, avoidance, and ignorance of it makes potentially involuntary encounters with drugs more dangerous. Besides fueling unnecessarily destructive policy decisions. Worth a think.
- immibis 1y ago
  If inviting someone to take drugs is a crime because it harms others, then inviting someone to take drugs should be the crime - taking them yourself should not be. You could even stretch it to mean that taking drugs in public should be a crime (like how it is with sex) since other people might see you. But it doesn't justify making it illegal to take drugs in private.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    That's how it works in some jurisdictions and I think that is a good approach. From https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/drug-offences-and-narcotics-criminal-law-in-germany/drug-possession-in-germany-sentencing-for-small-quantities/?lang=en https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/drug-offences-an... : > Is the Consumption of Drugs in Germany Illegal? > Although the acquisition, cultivation and possession, import and export (smuggling), and trade, as well as other forms of distribution of narcotics, are punishable under the Narcotics Act, this does not apply to mere consumption. The consumption of a drug meets the freedom of action and is therefore protected by the German constitution. Colloquially, this is also called “the right to get high”. Any prohibition or ban would be against the constitution and, therefore, is not enforceable. But since the offence of possession is already met by solely holding something in your hands, one of the above-mentioned actions is always going to be equally met when consuming a drug. It doesn't obviously change anything in practice.
    - immibis 1y ago
      It's hard to consume something without possessing it; consumption is proof of prior possession, therefore de facto illegal.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        I think the law is defined that way, so that you don't do anything illegal, if someone points a gun at you and tells you to eat this powder or else... .

1718627440 1y ago

I think it really depends on what you consider to be a victimless crime. I think nobody considers the same thing both to be a crime and a victimless crime. For example the article discusses adultery. There is obviously a third person harmed there, it only matters whether you care about that enough. Same with drug use. Drug use forces people to do other crimes and also invites people to take drugs that wouldn't otherwise, whether you consider these to be victims is on you of course.

timschmidt 1y ago
> Drug use forces people to do other crimes Something like 98% of humanity partakes of caffeine which is very clearly an addictive drug with one of the higher measures of addictive potential among all drugs in most evaluations. Drug use isn't what drives people to commit crime. Lack of support systems do. Drug use is often a coping mechanism associated with lack of support systems. This is very clearly articulated in the following study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/98787/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/98787/ To quote John Ehrlichman, Whitehouse counsel and assistant to President Nixon: “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities” Disrupted communities lack support systems and further drive folks to criminality as a means of surviving. Meanwhile, many of the founding fathers and modern political leaders have writtten quite fondly and positively about smoking cannabis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_have_acknowledged_cannabis_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politici... > For example the article discusses adultery Homosexuality and sodomy (i.e. sex without the intent of procreation) are clearer examples of criminalized sexual behavior between two consenting adults. I know some folks who'd like to outlaw them today in the US and they are currently outlawed elsewhere, but I believe what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > caffeine Not all drugs are created equal, withdrawal symptoms are different. > Homosexuality and sodomy They do affect the future population count and this will affect the pension of everyone. They also will result in persons not being born. You can say that this is way less of importance then the right to do whatever you want, but it is not without effect to others.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > Not all drugs are created equal, withdrawal symptoms are different. Not in my experience. I have voluntarily withdrawn from caffeine, opiates (administered by a hospital), and cannabis. All experiences were remarkably similar. When I run support groups for folks who've used drugs, I recommend folks experiment with caffeine withdrawal to gain experience with the process. It requires at least two weeks of cessation. > They do affect the future population count Seems that you're assuming homosexual folks would otherwise procreate if forced into heterosexual relationships, which is quite a stretch. I also know quite a few homosexual couples who raise scads of children. And childless heterosexual couples. This argument doesn't hold water.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      > All experiences were remarkably similar. Cool, my decision to not use caffeine is justified then.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business :) Victimless as it were. That said, should you find yourself in a health emergency, as I did, and hooked up to a dilaudid drip for weeks, as I was, you may find experience with the symptoms of withdrawal to be quite useful for getting yourself through the worst of it, as I did. Withdrawal is part of the human experience you don't always have a choice to avoid. Fear, avoidance, and ignorance of it makes potentially involuntary encounters with drugs more dangerous. Besides fueling unnecessarily destructive policy decisions. Worth a think.
immibis 1y ago
If inviting someone to take drugs is a crime because it harms others, then inviting someone to take drugs should be the crime - taking them yourself should not be. You could even stretch it to mean that taking drugs in public should be a crime (like how it is with sex) since other people might see you. But it doesn't justify making it illegal to take drugs in private.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  That's how it works in some jurisdictions and I think that is a good approach. From https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/drug-offences-and-narcotics-criminal-law-in-germany/drug-possession-in-germany-sentencing-for-small-quantities/?lang=en https://se-legal.de/criminal-defense-lawyer/drug-offences-an... : > Is the Consumption of Drugs in Germany Illegal? > Although the acquisition, cultivation and possession, import and export (smuggling), and trade, as well as other forms of distribution of narcotics, are punishable under the Narcotics Act, this does not apply to mere consumption. The consumption of a drug meets the freedom of action and is therefore protected by the German constitution. Colloquially, this is also called “the right to get high”. Any prohibition or ban would be against the constitution and, therefore, is not enforceable. But since the offence of possession is already met by solely holding something in your hands, one of the above-mentioned actions is always going to be equally met when consuming a drug. It doesn't obviously change anything in practice.
  - immibis 1y ago
    It's hard to consume something without possessing it; consumption is proof of prior possession, therefore de facto illegal.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      I think the law is defined that way, so that you don't do anything illegal, if someone points a gun at you and tells you to eat this powder or else... .