4 ms·

Have you ever gone 1 mph above the speed limit? Jaywalked? Loitered? Looked at pornography before you were old enough? Groped someone before you were of age? Ha

Have you ever gone 1 mph above the speed limit? Jaywalked? Loitered? Looked at pornography before you were old enough? Groped someone before you were of age? Had sex before you were of age? Drank underaged? Smoked underaged? Had a friend give you a few vicodin when you sprained an ankle? Given yourself a few dodgy deductibles when you filed your taxes? All these things are fairly minor, but they are all CRIMES. Crimes that people perpetrate all the time. And we'd have to put nearly everyone in jail if we strictly followed 'reality'.

jfornear 18y ago
Most of those are not crimes, but civil offenses. The possession and distribution of illegal drugs on the other hand, are criminal.
- ajkirwin 18y ago
  That's a difference only of degree.
  - jfornear 18y ago
    Sure, but I don't understand how you can belittle that. Partaking in the illegal drug trade is obviously not like jaywalking.
    - jonknee 18y ago
      > Partaking in the illegal drug trade is obviously not like jaywalking. You're right, they are not alike. Jaywalking is illegal for safety reasons (to both the offender and more importantly the driving public). On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process.
      - jfornear 18y ago
        > On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process. How can you ignore the violence that is unarguably a by-product of the illegal drug trade?
        unalone 18y ago
        jfornear, you're missing the points we've all made. The drug trade only results in violence because right now, every step to bring drugs to consumers is illegal. That means that it's unmonitored, and results in violence. Since you're breaking the law either way, no matter what you do is illegal, so there's no incentive to be peaceful in your processes. If the drug trade were to be legalized, suddenly people could profit more by accepting business regulations, and violence would lower. The point I've made elsewhere here is that it used to be producing alcohol led to violence, thanks to the Prohibition. Once alcohol legalized, businesses started making drinks rather than criminals, and the violence stopped.
        jfornear 18y ago
        No, I agree with your point. I just take it further by holding consumers responsible for fueling that violence when they could have done otherwise, not contributed to demand by obeying the laws.
        jimbokun 18y ago
        To make an analogy, it is similar to supporting sweat shop labor by buying Nikes (or whatever companies still use sweat shop labor). The argument in the case of illegal drugs is that handing over money to people engaged in violence makes it more likely the violence will continue.
        mcslee 18y ago
        You're arguing for the other side now. You just (correctly, IMO) attributed the violence of the drug trade to the fact that it is illegal. There's no violence in the tobacco or alcohol trades, largely because they are legal and regulated. It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.

jfornear 18y ago

Most of those are not crimes, but civil offenses. The possession and distribution of illegal drugs on the other hand, are criminal.

ajkirwin 18y ago
That's a difference only of degree.
- jfornear 18y ago
  Sure, but I don't understand how you can belittle that. Partaking in the illegal drug trade is obviously not like jaywalking.
  - jonknee 18y ago
    > Partaking in the illegal drug trade is obviously not like jaywalking. You're right, they are not alike. Jaywalking is illegal for safety reasons (to both the offender and more importantly the driving public). On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process.
    - jfornear 18y ago
      > On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process. How can you ignore the violence that is unarguably a by-product of the illegal drug trade?
      - unalone 18y ago
        jfornear, you're missing the points we've all made. The drug trade only results in violence because right now, every step to bring drugs to consumers is illegal. That means that it's unmonitored, and results in violence. Since you're breaking the law either way, no matter what you do is illegal, so there's no incentive to be peaceful in your processes. If the drug trade were to be legalized, suddenly people could profit more by accepting business regulations, and violence would lower. The point I've made elsewhere here is that it used to be producing alcohol led to violence, thanks to the Prohibition. Once alcohol legalized, businesses started making drinks rather than criminals, and the violence stopped.
        jfornear 18y ago
        No, I agree with your point. I just take it further by holding consumers responsible for fueling that violence when they could have done otherwise, not contributed to demand by obeying the laws.
        jimbokun 18y ago
        To make an analogy, it is similar to supporting sweat shop labor by buying Nikes (or whatever companies still use sweat shop labor). The argument in the case of illegal drugs is that handing over money to people engaged in violence makes it more likely the violence will continue.
      - mcslee 18y ago
        You're arguing for the other side now. You just (correctly, IMO) attributed the violence of the drug trade to the fact that it is illegal. There's no violence in the tobacco or alcohol trades, largely because they are legal and regulated. It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.