When is a Crime "Tolerable"?

[Hobbs]

It only takes one time to drive your car into someone or their house because you're drunk. First-time offenders are just as culpable for their actions.

[Stormraven]

By that argument, I gather you also believe that no civilian should be allowed to carry anything that can be a lethal weapon.

After all, it only takes one time for the person to use it to injure or kill another person.

Yes, I agree that first time offenders are just as culpable for their actions. My suggested course of action treats those first time offenders - the ones who've actually harmed someone - as harshly as the harm they cause deserves.

[Nyoibo]

By that argument, I gather you also believe that no civilian should be allowed to carry anything that can be a lethal weapon.

I refuse to submit to multiple limb amputation.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I refuse to submit to multiple limb amputation.

Well, I guess that means I can't carry a screwdriver, or a hammer, or drive in a car, or any package over 10 pounds, or twine, or a stick...

the list goes on.

The disparity isn't in that first-timers aren't as culpable for their actions as repeaters necessarily, it's that the first is possibly a freak occurrence whereas the second is a pattern. Likewise the first may or may not be indicative of an ongoing threat, depending on the circumstances while the second is basically confirmed to be dangerous. There's more to removal from society than punishment.

[MadMike]

Simply stated, if what you're doing isn't hurting anyone, it shouldn't be illegal. And sometimes the law is just wrong, like when racial discrimination wasn't only allowed, it was required.

Except I'm pretty sure there is a damn good reason drugs are illegal and should remain so.

I'm sure the same thing was said about alcohol in the early part of the last century, but banning it turned out to be a disaster. Now we're repeating that same mistake with other drugs. At least back then, we were smart enough to say, "This was a mistake, better repeal it."

But since most drugs these days are being sold through gangs, when you buy drugs, you support gangs financially enabling them to continue wreaking havoc.

And again, going back to the above-mentioned era, and all you have to do is change "drugs" to "alcohol" and "gangs" to "the mob."

[Hobbs]

Those are completely unrelated arguments. Hard drugs like cocaine aren't even remotely close to alcohol. The only reason people want these laws repealed is because they want to get high and not get arrested for it. Cocaine and marihuana have been illegal for over 50 years and we have not seen the level of violence prevalent during the 20's and 30's of American history.

[Hobbs]

By that argument, I gather you also believe that no civilian should be allowed to carry anything that can be a lethal weapon.

After all, it only takes one time for the person to use it to injure or kill another person.

Yes, I agree that first time offenders are just as culpable for their actions. My suggested course of action treats those first time offenders - the ones who've actually harmed someone - as harshly as the harm they cause deserves.

No, because punishing someone for vehicular manslaughter who's never driven drunk before is not the same as permitting someone to carry a weapon. Point of fact; it's constitutional to punish someone for a crime, it's unconstitutional to deny someone their rights. (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).

[MadMike]

Hard drugs like cocaine aren't even remotely close to alcohol.

Maybe not, but what about pot? I don't see how it's any worse than alcohol or tobacco. In fact, some people think that alcohol is worse than pot, and alcohol is perfectly legal as long as you're 21 or older.

The only reason people want these laws repealed is because they want to get high and not get arrested for it.

I have no desire to touch harder stuff like cocaine, so your argument doesn't apply to me. I can't speak for everyone else, but reason I want the laws repealed is because I don't think it's any of the government's or law's business what I choose to put in my own body.

Cocaine and marihuana have been illegal for over 50 years and we have not seen the level of violence prevalent during the 20's and 30's of American history.

Have you read a newspaper lately? There is a great deal of violence due to the gangs that are involved in trafficking drugs, and a lot of innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire. And it's already starting to spill over into the U.S.

[Hobbs]

Narco-terrorism isn't the direct result of anti-drug laws, sorry to break it to you. They need to fund their causes and crusades and whatnot, and they find the trading of illicit drugs to be very lucrative. If it wasn't drugs, they'd be dealing in something else to get money. The fact that there's gang violence isn't a reason to repeal drug laws.

If I'm not mistaken, pot contains a hallucionogenic closely related to LSD. I'd have to look it up first; but if you aren't into the 'harder' drugs as you claim, repealing one law gives legal precedent to repeal others. Also, my argument does apply to you because marijuana is still illegal, yet you don't want to be arrested for it, correct?

There are plenty of underage people who drink, and also do drugs. More than several people here can attest to this; so what's you're point about the drinking age?

The government has the right to regulate trade and collect taxes within its borders and across. That means that if products are being manufactured and consumed without the consent of the government, they're illegal.

[Nyoibo]

Amsterdam hasn't been taken over by violence and crime, they legalized marijuana, in fact just about any place that has legalized it hasn't had society crumble, or really had any problems.

[Hobbs]

Amsterdam hasn't been taken over by violence and crime, they legalized marijuana, in fact just about any place that has legalized it hasn't had society crumble, or really had any problems.

Well whoopdee-doo for Amsterdam. We're not just talking marijuana here, either.

The point of my original post, in case anyone wants to get back to the original argument, was whether or not something should be donw when you see people AT WORK visibly intoxicated or partaking of illegal drugs.

[Nyoibo]

Well whoopdee-doo for Amsterdam. We're not just talking marijuana here, either.

The point of my original post, in case anyone wants to get back to the original argument, was whether or not something should be donw when you see people AT WORK visibly intoxicated or partaking of illegal drugs.

Actually the original question was

When is it okay for a crime to be overlooked? When you disagree with the law? Or is it something else? Should a crime always be reported?

And the response has been from a few people that so long as it doesn't affect other people it shouldn't be illegal, people at work is affecting others.

[smileyeagle1021]

it's unconstitutional to deny someone their rights. (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).

see, I can play the bolding game too
Clearly the founding fathers intended for us all to be in the national guard and our weapon was to be used for that purpose...
The constitution, like the bible, can be used to prove any argument based on how you pick and chose what to emphasize and what to ignore.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

see, I can play the bolding game too
Clearly the founding fathers intended for us all to be in the national guard and our weapon was to be used for that purpose...
The constitution, like the bible, can be used to prove any argument based on how you pick and chose what to emphasize and what to ignore.

Doesn't mean you throw the whole damn thing out the window.

*Must avoid, second amendment argument. Will failing, arguing coming...*

The right of the PEOPLE, Militia =/= National Guard!

Anyway, the comparison between Prohibition and the war on drugs is just too perfect not to use!

It makes all the sense in the world. Both drugs and alcohol take various forms each with it's own potency. The illegalization of both is a big part of why their trafficking is so violent. Overdosing can range from basically impossible to damn near unavoidable for certain types of both, making certain kinds far less dangerous than others. The list goes on.

[MadMike]

The point of my original post, in case anyone wants to get back to the original argument, was whether or not something should be donw when you see people AT WORK visibly intoxicated or partaking of illegal drugs.

Was it? I read and re-read the original post, which you started yourself, several times and I'm still not seeing the "at work" part.

If someone's at work, they shouldn't be partaking in any mind-altering substance, whether it's something legal like acohol, or illegal like pot.

If they're at home, then it's really no one else's business.

If I somehow missed the original point of the thread you started, then I apologize.