• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why does the US have so many victimless crime laws?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Because some people are statists and want to stick their noses where it does not belong.

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

I'm sure their intentions are noble 'to make a better world' but all it does in clog our prisons and it's very doubtful if behavior changes.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
No more so than healthy people are subsidizing the behavior of unhealthy people. There are many kinds of "unhealthy", of which HIV among gay people is not one that is singularly significant.

There are far more people in the US with obesity-related health problems than there are with HIV. What primarily causes obesity? Too many more calories being consumed than are burned off through exercise/physical activity.



Everything about poor people is subsidized by the non-poor. Yours is not a good argument for anti-sodomy laws.
Click to expand...

Except it is the exact same argument as for seat belt laws. So I guess seat belt laws are not a good idea either.

Or maybe it is just that the anti-seatbelt people lack the lobby of gay people?
 
dank69 said:
I bet 100% of heroin users drank water at some point prior to trying heroin. Therefore, drinking water leads to heroin abuse.
Click to expand...

Drinking water is both necessary making a debate about its use pointless, but the relevant issue is that it does not release brain chemicals leading to addiction like the others.

Note I'm not referring to the physical addiction caused by nicotine or heroin but not marijuana, but the psychological addiction caused by 'take drug, get chemicals'.
 
Zebo said:
...it's very doubtful if behavior changes.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. It's a very hard question no one really seems to know.

But many people are happy to insist they can say whatever result supports their opinion on the drug laws.

There are plausible arguments for it going up, down, or staying the same. Who knows.
 
nehalem256 said:
Except it is the exact same argument as for seat belt laws. So I guess seat belt laws are not a good idea either.

Or maybe it is just that the anti-seatbelt people lack the lobby of gay people?
Click to expand...

404 Disparity Not Found.
404 Double Standard Not Found.

I don't think seat belt laws are a good idea.
 
I don't care if people harm themselves by not wearing seatbelts, but when drivers fly through the windshield unnecessarily it imposes a huge extra burden on publicly funded EMS systems.
 
woolfe9999 said:
He's referring to research that has been done on the issue. The trouble with the research is that it can't rule out the "gateway effect" being caused by the illegality of it. Someone tries one illegal drug, it makes it easier for them to decide to try another. Not only can this not be ruled out, there is actually no other plausible explanation. Using pot doesn't make you physically crave heroin. The only reason pot might be more likely a gateway than alcohol is *because* of prohibition. Legalize it and shouldn't be any more of a gateway than alcohol. The "gateway" effect is an argument in favor of legalizing it IMO.
Click to expand...
Ah, similar to the rest of the circular reasoning against legalizing pot.
 
In America, people like forcing their morals and values on others. Their inability to deal with personal issues manifests itself as political clout and new laws are often the result.
 
woolfe9999 said:
I never argued that every law affecting private property should be repealed. I argued that the state has to show a more compelling interest in regulating personal choice on private property in order to justify it.
Click to expand...

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?
 
shortylickens said:
In America, people like forcing their morals and values on others. Their inability to deal with personal issues manifests itself as political clout and new laws are often the result.
Click to expand...

Everyone does this. When government uses my tax dollars to bail out single mothers liberals are forcing their values on me.

zsdersw said:
404 Disparity Not Found.
404 Double Standard Not Found.

I don't think seat belt laws are a good idea.
Click to expand...

And do you think society should bare the cost of people who don't wear seatbelts and get in an accident?
 
Texashiker said:
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?
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe you have laws against sex toys that resemble Gentiles but not one that resemble Jews. I would have guessed it would be the opposite in Texas. :hmm:
 
EagleKeeper said:
Says someone that has never been in an accident with damages
Click to expand...

Laws are an ineffective way to force people to make fewer stupid decisions. Stupid people will make stupid decisions, whether there's a law against those stupid decisions or not.
 
Last edited:
nehalem256 said:
The victim is society when we have to pay for your medical bills and for your care when you become an invalid when you dont wear your seatbelt.

I guess if we were willing to say tough luck to such people such laws would not be necessary.
Click to expand...

So now that general healthcare is covered, this already tried and true logic can apply to absolutely _everything_ effecting health. Example, your soda is too large. It'll be illegal to use salt, etc.

Your life style costs society for your medical bills. Now government can legally control your personal choices.
 
dank69 said:
Ah, similar to the rest of the circular reasoning against legalizing pot.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
zsdersw said:
Laws are an ineffective way to force people to make fewer stupid decisions. Stupid people will make stupid decisions, whether there's a law against those stupid decisions or not.
Click to expand...

This is how they'll think up the solution to stupid choices.

For example, eating unapproved portions of food, food can no longer be sold. It is dangerous to your health and costs society money in your health care. The correct portion of food with be provided in daily rations.
 
EagleKeeper said:
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; I 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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the argument against alcohol. Maybe we should make that illegal, too. Maybe then things will be better. :hmm:
 
zsdersw said:
Laws are an ineffective way to force people to make fewer stupid decisions. Stupid people will make stupid decisions, whether there's a law against those stupid decisions or not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top