Why does the US have so many victimless crime laws?

[nehalem256]

That sounds like the argument against alcohol. Maybe we should make that illegal, too. Maybe then things will be better. :hmm:

Sounds like a good idea.

You just have to be serious about its prohibition, like singapore is with drugs... or gum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore

 

[woolfe9999]

Another example, Texas prohibits the sale of certain sex toys.

If a sex toy resembles gentiles, its not supposed to be sold in Texas.

If a married couple over the age of 21 decides to make our own whiskey, get drunk and sodomize each other with sex toys, shouldn't that be their business?

Then there was the mandatory record keeping of adult pictures the U.S. congress passed a few years ago. The law has been struck down. If an adult wants to post nude pictures of themselves on the internet, where is the victim?

When it comes to nudity, is there a victim? If so, where is the line between nudity and art?

If seeing a nude person is a crime, shouldn't national geographic magazine be shutdown?

You're preaching to the choir on all of these. I don't agree with any of them. You know why they have laws pertaining to home brew, right? It's to protect large corporate liquor companies who lobby.

 

[zsdersw]

Actually, that is demonstrably false, and in a suprising number of areas.

It does work, and that's part of why it needs to be pushed back against on other grounds.

No it doesn't. There is a threshold beyond which more laws trying to cut down more and more of any given stupid choice will be completely ineffective. The point of diminishing returns approaches rapidly.

 

[zsdersw]

It is a demonstrable fact that the use of seat belts saves lives and reduce damage to the body.

True.. and that was never in dispute.

Given that for every accident there is at least one at fault and numerous others that are not; having the seatbelts required is an excellent safety measure.

And yet injurious or fatal accidents in which someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt remain a significant portion of all accidents.

Laws like this are only effective when they're consistently and thoroughly enforced. Show me a police department that has sufficient staffing devoted to seatbelt enforcement.

 

[xj0hnx]

And just this week a lady left her 5 week old in a carseat.
Carseatwas left on top of vehicle and she took off.
Carseat fell to ground; lady was unaware of such.

Got home; could not find child and went back to store.
Story was that she needed to get into the car to get her toke and then she headed home.


Couple of years ago; a guy was stoned on brownies and claimed he had a bomb on the plane.


Both incident show that weed is not harmless; it can affect peoples actions/perceptions to do something they would not normally do.

Or they were both could just be really fucking stupid. As Ichy already mentioned the same could be applied to alcohol, but yet alcohol is not only accepted, it celebrated. Drug laws are the most hypocritical, ignorance/greed driven totalitarian idiocy on Earth.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

True.. and that was never in dispute.



And yet injurious or fatal accidents in which someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt remain a significant portion of all accidents.

Laws like this are only effective when they're consistently and thoroughly enforced. Show me a police department that has sufficient staffing devoted to seatbelt enforcement.

Are you saying that if we don't have the manpower to enforce a law 100% of the time then we should abolish the law? If not, then what exactly are you saying?

Also, I've been pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. It sucked, but I'm glad they did it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

True.. and that was never in dispute.



And yet injurious or fatal accidents in which someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt remain a significant portion of all accidents.

Laws like this are only effective when they're consistently and thoroughly enforced. Show me a police department that has sufficient staffing devoted to seatbelt enforcement.

Every life saved and/or injury severity reduced via any enforcement is worth the effort.

 

[zsdersw]

Are you saying that if we don't have the manpower to enforce a law 100% of the time then we should abolish the law? If not, then what exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that laws cannot and do not eliminate stupid choices.

 

[zsdersw]

Every life saved and/or injury severity reduced via any enforcement is worth the effort.

Every life that wasn't saved or injury severity increased via a gap or failure in enforcement demonstrates the futility of relying on laws to prevent stupid choices from being made.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Or they were both could just be really fucking stupid. As Ichy already mentioned the same could be applied to alcohol, but yet alcohol is not only accepted, it celebrated. Drug laws are the most hypocritical, ignorance/greed driven totalitarian idiocy on Earth.

Both used weed as an excuse.

Given that a 5 wk old could have been killed if not for luck; that is a good enough reason.
Do people climb into their vehicle to get a nicotine fix and forget what is on top of the vehicle?

Idiots that was weed as an excuse must also accept the results of weed as an excuse.

Your perceived right to smoke overrides the safety of another.
In your mind maybe.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I'm saying that laws cannot and do not eliminate stupid choices.

If a law isn't 100% effective and eliminating poor choices we should abolish it?

Maybe we should use technology to enforce laws. How about a weight sensor in the seat? Instead of sounding an alarm when not buckled in the car simply won't start? Or maybe it won't go above 5 MPH?

We have to draw the line somewhere. Seat belt laws protect the public and should be enforced. Just because it isn't 100% effective at making people buckle up doesn't mean it should be abolished - it just means we should have steeper penalties. If not buckling up resulted in a $1000 fine or suspension of license for 6 months I'm sure people would remember to buckle up.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No it doesn't. There is a threshold beyond which more laws trying to cut down more and more of any given stupid choice will be completely ineffective. The point of diminishing returns approaches rapidly.

Diminishing returns? Sure. But that doesn't mean the measures don't work.

They do, and seat belts are a classic example.

 

[xj0hnx]

Both used weed as an excuse.

Given that a 5 wk old could have been killed if not for luck; that is a good enough reason.
Do people climb into their vehicle to get a nicotine fix and forget what is on top of the vehicle?

Nicotine? Who said anything about nicotine? Alcohol.

Idiots that was weed as an excuse must also accept the results of weed as an excuse.

Your perceived right to smoke overrides the safety of another.
In your mind maybe.

Alcohol. Reconcile your statement with alcohol instead of weed.

 

[zsdersw]

If a law isn't 100% effective and eliminating poor choices we should abolish it?

It shouldn't have existed in the first place.

 

[zsdersw]

Diminishing returns? Sure. But that doesn't mean the measures don't work.

Yes it does... if a problem is serious enough to need a law, it should be a law that is completely effective.

They do, and seat belts are a classic example.

No they don't.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

It shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Laws against burglary, theft, rape, movie pirating, child seat belt restraints, and murder aren't 100% effective - it still happens and we don't have a way to enforce it 100% of the time. So laws against that shouldn't exist?

To my knowledge, if you are seen not wearing a seatbelt, you get a ticket. It isn't something that is infrequently enforced. It is just something not always easy to catch.

 

[BoberFett]

And yet injurious or fatal accidents in which someone wasn't wearing their seatbelt remain a significant portion of all accidents.

Laws like this are only effective when they're consistently and thoroughly enforced. Show me a police department that has sufficient staffing devoted to seatbelt enforcement.

I hear there's talk of a new interlock system being required for seatbelts. You have to blow a politician before your car will start.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No they don't.

Just to be clear. You are actually claiming that seat belt laws do not increase seat belt use?

 

[zsdersw]

Laws against burglary, theft, rape, movie pirating, child seat belt restraints, and murder aren't 100% effective - it still happens and we don't have a way to enforce it 100% of the time. So laws against that shouldn't exist?

We're talking about victimless crimes. Burglary, theft, rape, pirating, and murder are not victimless crimes.

 

[BoberFett]

Laws against burglary, theft, rape, movie pirating, child seat belt restraints, and murder aren't 100% effective - it still happens and we don't have a way to enforce it 100% of the time. So laws against that shouldn't exist?

None of which are victimless.* Fail.



* Of course piracy is a civil matter that criminal organizations like RIAA and MPAA are trying to turn into criminal matters so they can foist the cost of enforcement on to the public rather than shouldering the burden themselves.

 

[zsdersw]

Just to be clear. You are actually claiming that seat belt laws do not increase seat belt use?

I'm claiming they are nowhere near 100% effective. I'm also claiming that a seatbelt law isn't the best way to make sure people use them. The consequences of death/injury should be all the persuasion that's needed. Anything else is just coddling the stupid.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm claiming they are nowhere near 100% effective. I'm also claiming that a seatbelt law isn't the best way to make sure people use them.

Surely you realize that these can both be true, but the laws can still reduce the incidence of stupid decisions, contrary to what you said earlier?

 

[zsdersw]

Surely you realize that these can both be true, but the laws can still reduce the incidence of stupid decisions, contrary to what you said earlier?

I don't consider a minor reduction significant enough to say it's effective.

 

[Jaskalas]

It is a demonstrable fact that the use of seat belts saves lives and reduce damage to the body.

Given that for every accident there is at least one at fault and numerous others that are not; having the seatbelts required is an excellent safety measure.

Smoking and Alcohol do damage and take lives. Using such logic they too must be made illegal.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Smoking and Alcohol do damage and take lives. Using such logic they too must be made illegal.

Not really. Just make it so that seatbelts must only be worn when driving on public roads. If you get into an accident on your property without a seatbelt, your problem. If you get into an accident on a public road without a seatbelt, it's a public issue. It's similar to how being drunk in public is legal in the privacy of your own home but not in public.