Are prostitution and drug use victimless crimes?

[TheOldRhino]

Rhino you crack me up..

And you quoted my post as OFK

No I didn't.

[S225TSA]

No because generally there is a reason why women are forced to prostitution which they are victims of. As for drug use, no, because drugs are a very powerful thing and the people who use them generally don't realize the severe problems that they will cause them.

[BigDawg]

Rhino,
I will reply to some of your statements and questions. And yes for the record I also enjoy a healthy civilised debate.

You say the the Government has no right to regulate what we put into our bodies, right?

If that was the case why do we have the FDA? Why do they research all those prescription drugs and such, if they have no right to do it? Also if that is our stance should we do away with the FDA and let anyone sell anything, and make any claim to there product they want?

You make alot of refernce to Alcohol, Gambling, and Nicotine, but all of these are regulated by the Government. When I made reference to some drugs beig instantly addictive you said like Alcohol, Gambling , and Nicotine. I'm sorry Ive never heard of these as being instantly addictive like Meth, Crack, Heroine and others are. Maybe I'm wrong but I dont see how you can compare the two classes together.


You make the statement that if someone robs someone to buy a TV should the TV be illigal. Well if thousands of people everyday were robbing, killing, etc. to buy TV's then I would have to say that we as a society will need to look at this and possibly either regulate it closer or make it illegal. But since this isn't happening then its a mute point to make. Lets compare apples to apples.

Lastly,
Drunk Driving with out an accident occuring is a victimless crime, using your formula, compare it to what your saying. But you say its a traffic law (drugs are currently illegal too). You say the person is operating a machine that can kill, just as a person who is on legal drugs would do. I think you have a double standard because the exact same statements can be made for a drug user (legal or not) as a person under the influence of alcohol. The big difference is I dont see on the news about everyday of the week, someon robbing, killing etc. other people to feed their alcohol addiction as you see with drugs.


And finally a question for you Rhino.
If drugs were legal what would you consider as regulation for them? Someone can be under the influence of them anytime? certain times? where can they take the drugs? etc.

As you may not think this, but I do see your side of the equation. And its not that Im brainwashed by the government, I just dont think legalising drugs would solve all these problems. I think it would cause more problems to crop up. I dont believe that only Marijuana use would increase therefore its no big deal. Sorry if its all of a sudden legal, thousands of people would try crack, meth, etc. and we would have alot more problems than we do now.

[Terminator]

BigDawg, your post was excellent. That's the best arguement I have seen to Rhino yet, and I agree 100% with you.

[kay88]

+1 Very excellent points BigDawg!

[TheOldRhino]

Rhino,
I will reply to some of your statements and questions.

Okay, you answered one of my questions.

You say the the Government has no right to regulate what we put into our bodies, right?

Wrong. That is not what I said. I asked a question. One you didn't answer. I said "What right does the government have to tell us what we can or cannot put in our bodies."

If you read any of my posts, you'd know that I am for the regulating and control of narcotics. I just don't think they should be banned carte blanch.

You make alot of refernce to Alcohol, Gambling, and Nicotine, but all of these are regulated by the Government. When I made reference to some drugs beig instantly addictive you said like Alcohol, Gambling , and Nicotine. I'm sorry Ive never heard of these as being instantly addictive like Meth, Crack, Heroine and others are. Maybe I'm wrong but I dont see how you can compare the two classes together.

Yes, you are wrong. Most any addiction medicine expert will tell you that nicotine is every bit as addictive as heroine or cocaine. I believe meth and crack are direct biproducts of the "War on Drugs" They were invented by people who wanted stretch their drug supply because they had a limited amount. If the war on drugs never exsisted- that is to say, if drugs were never made illegal in 1914- then we would not have crack or meth today. Be that as it may, most people know these substances are addictive. And those that want to do these drugs are going to do them- regardless of their legality.

You make the statement that if someone robs someone to buy a TV should the TV be illigal. Well if thousands of people everyday were robbing, killing, etc. to buy TV's then I would have to say that we as a society will need to look at this and possibly either regulate it closer or make it illegal.

Thank you. I see we agree. If drugs are, in fact, the cause of violent crime such as robberies, then yes- they should be regulated.
But do you think if drug just vanished. Poof! No more drugs, that we'd have no more violent crime?

Since you agree drugs should be kept illegal- how do you propose we win the war on drugs? Because I think you'd agree that it's not a winnable war.

Drunk Driving with out an accident occuring is a victimless crime, using your formula, compare it to what your saying.

Again, you aren't listening to me. Traffic laws can, by their definition, be more restrictive than most other laws. I can walk around my property and drink all I want. But I can't (legally) drive around my property drinking.

That's just like saying any traffic law that is violated without an accident is a victimless crime. It really is outside the arguement. My question was (the one you never answered): If I sit in my living room and do an illegal drug, who is the victim?

If drugs were legal what would you consider as regulation for them? Someone can be under the influence of them anytime? certain times? where can they take the drugs? etc.

I'm not qualified to make those decisions any more than I'm qualified to say what the USDA standards are on a side of beef. There are smarter, more experienced people in that field that are qualified to make those decisions. It's an unfair question, and has nothing to do with the topic.

As you may not think this, but I do see your side of the equation. And its not that Im brainwashed by the government, I just dont think legalising drugs would solve all these problems. I think it would cause more problems to crop up. I dont believe that only Marijuana use would increase therefore its no big deal. Sorry if its all of a sudden legal, thousands of people would try crack, meth, etc. and we would have alot more problems than we do now.

Again, you have failed to answer my question: How many people do you know that want to do crack but won't just because it's illegal?

[BigDawg]

If you will look back you will see I answered alot of those questions in earlier posts, I didnt realise I needed to in every post sorry.

Why does the Government have the right to regulate what we put into our bodies?? Because if they didnt regulate the companies that make those products then alot of people would die. They aren't necessarily regulating what we put into our bodies as they are regulating the companies themselves.

As I said before NO we cannot win the war on drugs, we never will. Even if we legalise it and regulate the hell out of it, it will still be a problem and a burden on this country. But that in itself isnt a good enough arguement to legalise it Rhino. Lets take it another step and use your reasoning in other areas and see if it fits there too. Will we ever win the war on terrorism?? No, so should we give up and wave the white flag on it, NO.
Will we ever win the "war" on drunk driving? NO, so should we make it legal and give up on it? NO.
That is just 2 examples, sorry just becuase we wont win something doesnt mean we should give up the fight and give in. I think we should fight even harder.

You also argue that if we make it legal then except for Marijuana no other people will try the drugs, just the ones doing it now. WRONG!!!
If we lower the drinking age or the age to buy and consume cigg's will only the ones doing it illegally do it?? I dont think so, I think alot more people will try it. Its the same with drugs, once you say its now legal and its ok to do it, then alot more people will experiment with it. That alone will cause more problems than we have now.

You said that Nicotine is as addictive as cocaine, ok Ill accept that in a way. But what of Alcohol and gambling? You used those over and over again. Its apples to oranges, dont say one is as addictive as drugs and use it as examples when they arent.

Again go back to your scenario, as I said in a previous post your scenario is picture perfect. So in the perfect scenario there is NO victim there, I agree. But lets use it in my scenario too, if I'm drunk lets say a.10 and I drive home from a party and dont swerve or hit anyone and don't violate any other motor vehicle laws, is there a victim? Should it be illegal still? Now dont say thats its a traffic law, and someone has the chance of being killed by my actions, thats the same arguments people are giving you in your scenario and you dont accept them. So should it be illegal, and who is the victim?

[TheOldRhino]

if I'm drunk lets say a.10 and I drive home from a party and dont swerve or hit anyone and don't violate any other motor vehicle laws, is there a victim? Should it be illegal still? Now dont say thats its a traffic law, and someone has the chance of being killed by my actions, thats the same arguments people are giving you in your scenario and you dont accept them. So should it be illegal, and who is the victim?

The same victim as if I go twice the speed limit through a neighborhood without hitting anyone or anything.

You talk about "apples and oranges", and then you start comparing them.

Do you think alcohol should be illegal?

[Freedomfighter]

OK, prostitution in the legal sense such as the Bunny Ranch may be argued as victimless...but street walkers and massage parlors for sure have victims. One needs only to look at the woman beaten by pimps or johns, robbed, not to mention the walking cesspool of diseases...which brings us to drugs...both their prevelance in prostitution, as well as the crime that accompanies an addict. theft, fraud, the occasional violent outburst...not to mention just being royal pains in the ass

HAHAHAHA. The only reason women CAN be beaten by pimps or johns is because it is illegal. Legalize and regulate, just like the sale of shoes, and these problems go away. Same thing goes for drugs, take a lesson from history. The problems caused by alcohol prohibition were outrageous, now that it is legal there are far fewer problems and it is again manageable. You can't make drugs or prostitution go away, all you can do is fill up prisons with innocent people, drive up the demand which increases cost which increases incentive to sell which increases the problem and wastes tax payer money.

[Virginian]

The only reason women CAN be beaten by pimps or johns is because it is illegal. Legalize and regulate, just like the sale of shoes, and these problems go away.

Ummm...

[General Patten]

[tapout]

HAHAHAHA. The only reason women CAN be beaten by pimps or johns is because it is illegal. Legalize and regulate, just like the sale of shoes, and these problems go away. Same thing goes for drugs, take a lesson from history. The problems caused by alcohol prohibition were outrageous, now that it is legal there are far fewer problems and it is again manageable. You can't make drugs or prostitution go away, all you can do is fill up prisons with innocent people, drive up the demand which increases cost which increases incentive to sell which increases the problem and wastes tax payer money.

RHINO, its arguments like these from douchebags like this that slaughter the credibility of your points.

it really only sounds like it has the possibility of being legitimate when you say it because at least you have obvious intelligence and the ability to defend your position...this guy, not so much.

[General Patten]

RHINO, its arguments like these from douchebags like this that slaughter the credibility of your points.

it really only sounds like it has the possibility of being legitimate when you say it because at least you have obvious intelligence and the ability to defend your position...this guy, not so much.

too true... the best thing this guy could do is quit while he's ahead, but that ship sailed the moment he began to speak...

[Virginian]

Now that I read it again, it sounds like he's joking. At least I hope so. It's a parody of the drug legalization argument that people only abuse it because it's illegal.

[General Patten]

Now that I read it again, it sounds like he's joking. At least I hope so. It's a parody of the drug legalization argument that people only abuse it because it's illegal.

hard to tell with this guy... I guess hes just trolling, but who knows?

Intelligence is limited, but stupidity is infinite...

[BigDawg]

No I dont think alcohol should be illegal. And you were the one who made reference to it and compared it to drugs. So Im using it as an example but you wont answer the question. You also use the defense for driving drunk as being a traffic law, but wont let someone use the defense of drugs as being illegal.

Just trying to get you to see how your using double standards is all.


And I do honestly believe that the majority of major crimes (more than 50%) are somehow tied to drugs. Someone being a user, seller, buyer, or trying to get the money for more. I dont see that changing just because its legal, unless you allow people to buy it with foodstamps..........lol

[Terminator]

Ignore FreedomFighter, AKA: Fortune. He has been banned.

[BigDawg]

With what he posted in the thread of the South Bend officer that shot the guy in what sounds like self defense, I dont want to ignore him I want to find him in a dark alley!!!!!

[General Patten]

With what he posted in the thread of the South Bend officer that shot the guy in what sounds like self defense, I dont want to ignore him I want to find him in a dark alley!!!!!

+1

[Virginian]

With what he posted in the thread of the South Bend officer that shot the guy in what sounds like self defense, I dont want to ignore him I want to find him in a dark alley!!!!!

Ewwww, just because the guy believes prostitution should be legal doesn't mean he'll do THAT