Are prostitution and drug use victimless crimes?

[Trojan 42]

I've found a 'Victim' in this. Rhino. He must be suffering from Repetitive Strain Disorder caused by all the typing he's been doing.

[TheOldRhino]

by the way, around here, people dont spend any time in jail for smoking pot..

ive never seen anyone go to jail on a possession charge, unless the words with intent to distrube followed. other then that, its always a recog, followed by pbj or suspended sentence and probation

Okay, let me paint a more clearer picture:

Cletus gets busted for misd possession of pot. No biggie. He's taken to jail (or not) and gets bonded out. Court day comes, and of course Judge gives them probation. One of the conditions of his probation, of course, is no weed.

Flash forward, and Cletus- being the rocket scientist that dope smokers are- fails his drug screen at the probation office.

Now, he's in jail with no bond for violation of probation. He's taking up a bed with no chance of getting out for at least a week (or more if the judge makes him finish his probation in jail) taking up a bed that could be used for someone who just brought in for any other number of violent crimes who actually needs to be off our street.

I believe the prostitutes are the victims . Some of these prostitutes were born into it literally.

Victims of what?

I've found a 'Victim' in this. Rhino. He must be suffering from Repetitive Strain Disorder caused by all the typing he's been doing.

LOL!! Amen, brother!!

[cwtlady]

I'm not offended, I get that a lot- and that's why a lot of cops who agree with me are affraid to say so.

If this is their site they shouldn't be afraid to have a discussion about it.

I was, for a long time, scared to express my views for obvious reasons. But after realizing I wasn't alone in these beliefs, I became more vocal.

I guess I didn't realize you were serious about legalizing drugs. I thought you were just trying to create a discussion for the sake of creating a discussion.

If you want to get a better idea into where I'm coming from, please watch it.

I do want to understand where you're coming from because I have a personal interest in the issue. I have arthritis and I'm in pain most of the time. Let me say that I am strongly against the legalization of drugs. Personally I'd rather be dead than to resort to the use of marijuana. There are other ways to cope with pain and other meds to use.

Some of those meds are controlled substances and some are not and both are pretty strong. My doctor won't let me go on anything stronger for fear of addiction and I agree with him so I have to try alternative ways to cope with the pain. I think resorting to using marijuana is a cop out. Most likely they just want to get high.

People can take controlled substances, like opiates, long term and still function and interact with those around them but can the same be said of marijuana and other illegal drugs? Only 2% of those who take vicodin for arthritis get addicted to it and that's long term use. Can the same be said for marijuana? I don't think so.

I don't mean to turn this into a marijuana debate but I just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from when I say that drug use is not a victimless crime. Pm me if you want. I'll listen to your side.

[TheOldRhino]

I understand, believe me. And I think it shows great moral fortitude that you choose not to do drugs- but ultimately, that's what it is: a choice.

The fact is, if you wanted to smoke marijuana- whether it's legal or not- you could. The only difference is whether or not it's legal- and that's about it.

The "war on drugs" has killed more police officers than any other targeted law enforcement- and just like the guy in the video I showed you asked: Does anyone honestly think we are going to win the "war on drugs"?

[Terminator]

IThe "war on drugs" has killed more police officers than any other targeted law enforcement- and just like the guy in the video I showed you asked: Does anyone honestly think we are going to win the "war on drugs"?

The "War on Drugs" has killed a lot of police officers, but whether it was a declared war or not is irrelevant, the officers would still be dead, if the drugs were illegal. I also can easily so that LEO's would still die over legal street drug transactions, though the deaths would definitely, and significantly decrease, which I believe is your point.

The real problem is, anytime you declare on anything, like we have with drugs, you don't stand a chance of winning. We'd have been better off to let our actions speak louder, than start some major P.R. campaign, and spend millions on commercials and whatnot. Take the money, orgazine the shiot, and git r' done.

[tapout]

The "war on drugs" has killed more police officers than any other targeted law enforcement- and just like the guy in the video I showed you asked: Does anyone honestly think we are going to win the "war on drugs"?

no, i dont believe well ever WIN the war on drugs, but well also never win the war against crime in general. there are always going to be murders, rapes, robberies, burglaries, assaults, etc...its our job security. as long as its out there, ill do what i can (which may not be much) to stop it.

while we keep arresting bad guys, new bad guys in the making are being raised by awful parents as we speak...well never stop crime in general, not just the drug trade.

that being said, it doesnt make me want to give up and legalize it. if i felt that way, id probably quit.

[TheOldRhino]

no, i dont believe well ever WIN the war on drugs, but well also never win the war against crime in general.

So what sense does it make to go out and "create" more crimes and thus more criminals?

Obviously the more things you make illegal, the more crime will go up.

For those that didn't see the video I posted, one of the speakers in there brings up a good point:

Before 1914 there were no illegal drugs in the US. Then in 1914, it was surmised that 1.3% of the population was addicted to narcotics. "Well we got to put a stop to that!" So, they make the narcotics illegal. Then in the 1970s, it was surmised that 1.3% of the population was still addicted to drugs. "Well we can't have that!" So we create the "War on Drugs". Now, over 30 years later, here we are. After spending 69 billion dollars annually on the War on Drugs- how many people are still addicted to drugs? 1.3% of the population.

Again- the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. How is the War on Drugs any different?

[Sgt Rock]

Any cop who wants to legalize drugs and prostitution can never work with me.

[TheOldRhino]

Any cop who wants to legalize drugs and prostitution can never work with me.

And I'm sure we're all worse off for it- but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[BigDawg]

Rhino the war on drugs will never be won, its because of economics; ie supply and demand. As long as people want it there will be people to supply it. But on the other hand I dont see how legalizing it will bring an absolute end to crime, meth labs, drug mules etc. If these people can still do it cheaper than whats being done they will. ie weapons, guns are legal but its cheaper and less hassel to buy one black market so its done that way all the time. Should guns then be illegal no.

Also you just said that the more things you make illegal the more crime will go up. Well duh!!! The more statistics you add the more they will go up, come on.

You also say that we shouldn't make more criminals because its something we cant win. Well crime in general is something we cant win, and we are making more criminals, maybe we should just say that nothing is illegal anymore. (by the way we dont make the criminal, the criminal makes the criminal).

I agree that Government is to much in my shit in alot of ways. I think I should have more freedom than I have, let me make my choices and live with the consequences. But if my choices would, or could, hurt someone else who is an innocent bystander to my choice then yes that should be illegal. There will always be people that will need to break other laws to buy legal drugs, why? because they are addicted to it and cant pay for it themselves any other way. If you dont believe me what about the people that are addicted to prisciption drugs? These are legal drugs, but they break laws to be able to get these legal drugs.

I dont care how you legalize it, or rational it out it needs to remain illegal.

Prostitution is another matter all together. If a woman is willing to lower her morals and esteem to that point. And there are strong safe guards inplace to make sure she is clean. Then I for one don't have a problem with it.

And as for your initial scenario. In that perfect little vacuum world you painted in that scenario, no there isnt a victim. Unfortunatly that could be done in almost any crime or case. And we all know this isnt a perfect world, there just any such thing.

[moggsp98]

And note how no one has even began to tell me who the victim is if I wanted to pay a female to have sex with me. It's perfectly legal in Nevada. Can anyone tell me who the victim in the cathouse is?

How about your wife and kids? (Don't know if you have either, but that would be a good start for most people.)

[OFK]

I've found a 'Victim' in this. Rhino. He must be suffering from Repetitive Strain Disorder caused by all the typing he's been doing.

LOL! Yeah and he somehow managed to vote twice

[TheOldRhino]

Rhino the war on drugs will never be won, its because of economics; ie supply and demand.

I'm glad we agree. So why continue with it?

Prohibition in the 1920s didn't work, either- and they lifted it. Why should our modern prohibition be any different?

As long as people want it there will be people to supply it. But on the other hand I dont see how legalizing it will bring an absolute end to crime, meth labs, drug mules etc. If these people can still do it cheaper than whats being done they will.

Simple. If it is manufactured and regulated, like tobacco and sold in stores, then it will be easier for people to go to the store and buy it- like you said: supply and demand. How may people do you know that grow their own tobacco or make their own liquor?

I never said legalizing drugs will bring an end to crime. Nothing will ever bring an end to crime. However, it will lower the crime rate.

ie weapons, guns are legal but its cheaper and less hassel to buy one black market so its done that way all the time. Should guns then be illegal no.

Guns are sold on the black market because most criminals are no eligible to buy guys legally- and they are rarely cheaper on the black market.

Also you just said that the more things you make illegal the more crime will go up. Well duh!!! The more statistics you add the more they will go up, come on.

So what sense does it make to make things against the law that do not affect a person's life, liberty, or property?

You also say that we shouldn't make more criminals because its something we cant win. Well crime in general is something we cant win, and we are making more criminals, maybe we should just say that nothing is illegal anymore.

This arguement is ridiculous. What I'm saying is that laws should be made to protect our lives, liberties, and property. Drug laws- as they are right now- and prostitution do none of these.

I agree that Government is to much in my shit in alot of ways. I think I should have more freedom than I have, let me make my choices and live with the consequences. But if my choices would, or could, hurt someone else who is an innocent bystander to my choice then yes that should be illegal.

You mean like alcohol? You mean like tobacco? You mean like cars?

There will always be people that will need to break other laws to buy legal drugs, why?

I don't care why a person commits a crime. If a guy robs a store, I don't care if it's to feed his kid or to feed his habit- it's still an armed robbery and he should be punished accordingly.

If a guy robs a liquor store to buy a new TV, does that mean we should make TVs illegal?

I dont care how you legalize it, or rational it out it needs to remain illegal.

That's just blind thinking. Or no-thinking, to be more precise. "it's not good, so we must keep it illegal"? Come on- you're smarter than that.

And as for your initial scenario. In that perfect little vacuum world you painted in that scenario, no there isnt a victim.

Finally! An honest answer. Now, if there is no victim, why is it illegal for me to sit in my living room and do drugs?

How about your wife and kids? (Don't know if you have either, but that would be a good start for most people.)

No, I'm not married and don't have kids. But so what? What if I did and my wife was perfectly willing to accept it? What if it's just part of our culture and way of life? Who are you to tell me how my family should be run? Just because one family doesn't meet your "standards" of what a family should be, doesn't mean they are a victim. Exactly how do you think they are a victim?

[moggsp98]

What if she wasn't willing to accept it? And where in my question was I telling you how to run your family? And I said nothing about meeting my family standards. I was pointing out that some would consider the wife and children to be the victim. It is they who have to change their lives to either accept your habits or to get away from them. It is they who have to deal with the way society deals with addiction while you are off getting laid and high.

[Virginian]

Tony's mom is a hooker, why don't we just ask her?

[TheOldRhino]

What if she wasn't willing to accept it? And where in my question was I telling you how to run your family? And I said nothing about meeting my family standards. I was pointing out that some would consider the wife and children to be the victim. It is they who have to change their lives to either accept your habits or to get away from them. It is they who have to deal with the way society deals with addiction while you are off getting laid and high.

How are addictions to tobacco, alcohol, gambling, or fast food any different?

That's something we'd have to handle as a family, and as long as I'm not infringing on another person's right to life, liberty, or property, what right does the government have to interfere?

[OFK]

How are addictions to tobacco, alcohol, gambling, or fast food any different?

That's something we'd have to handle as a family, and as long as I'm not infringing on another person's right to life, liberty, or property, what right does the government have to interfere?

I am gonna sit on my hands now.

[OFK]

Rhino,

Just a quickie question. Are you for the legalization of marijuana or all drugs?

[BigDawg]

Rhino,
Let me ask something; the majority of crimes are committed by drug users correct?? (robberies, thefts etc.)

These users are committing the crimes to feed their habit, or a few because their mind is altered and they are doing something out of their normal contxt, correct??

As a LEO I know these statements to be true. So how would making these drugs legal stop this behaviour. Yes it would make the drug more readily available. But if they didnt have the money to buy it before why would they have it now when its legal?? And once you add the taxes and other governement add-ons to the price it wont be any cheaper than it is now. You may cut out the middle man by making it legal, but you wont stop the crime. In fact I would bet that since more peaopl will be able to use the drugs, and become addicted to it you might have more crimes.

Its proven that some drugs are so addictive that the majority of people who try it once become addicted. They now will spend all their money on the drug to re-create that initial high. Soon more and more people will be getting thrown out of their houses for not paying. More and more will be on welfare and such, plus committing crimes so they can go to the corner store and buy their drug.

Im sorry I dont see how making it legal will magically solve all these problems. You also say that you dont care why someone commits a robbery, just that they did. But I do, if the pre-cursor to the crime is drugs then we as a society have to do whatever we can to help control the pre-cursor so the robbery doesnt occur to begin with.

In your rational of thinking then you believe that the act of driving drunk should be legal, as long as he makes it home he isnt hurting anyone and there is no victim. But if he gets into an accident then we should charge him, but we wont look at the pre-cursor to the accident. Sorry I don't agree with that line of thinking. Yes as long as he is making it home ok then who is the victim?? Noone, so should it be legal to drive drunk?


Like I said before your scenario is a perfect scenario. Rhino, life is not perfect.

[OFK]

In your rational of thinking then you believe that the act of driving drunk should be legal, as long as he makes it home he isnt hurting anyone and there is no victim. But if he gets into an accident then we should charge him, but we wont look at the pre-cursor to the accident. Sorry I don't agree with that line of thinking. Yes as long as he is making it home ok then who is the victim?? Noone, so should it be legal to drive drunk?


Like I said before your scenario is a perfect scenario. Rhino, life is not perfect.

Ok now we are getting somewhere, my same drunk driving comment was somewhat dismissed. It's ok though I am more interested in whether Rhino believes that marijuana and all drugs in general should be legalized.