When is a Crime "Tolerable"?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I do believe it was that final few sentences in which he elaborated on the policies of the Military, his duty to uphold them, and the fact that it's pretty stupid to put someone under the influence of anything behind a multi-billion/trillion dollar death machine...

[Rapscallion]

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.

Unless things have changed since I was there about a decade ago, that's incorrect. It's still illegal, as is prostitution, but it's tolerated.

However, I've been there and seen the red light district. Huge influx of tourists - the reckon up to 100,000 on a Summer night. This is in an area about one kilometre square. It requires two police stations to manage and there is still crime. In an evening, walk over a bridge and have a bloke casually not look at you, yet offer you cocaine or heroin - been there, done that. Bag snatching is rampant (distracted tourists are good marks).

The Dutch aren't huge on smoking dope - it happens, but it's a on an occasional recreation basis rather than a lifestyle. I saw the occasional 'coffee house', but there was no sign of other drug use anywhere else.

Most of the problems with crime were due to outsiders - immigrants and/or touists.

Rapscallion

[Hobbs]

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.

The link I provided was to a mention of employees smoking while on the job. Since discussion was turning Fratch-abe, I moved it here. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

[protege]

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.

That's been going on for awhile. Locally, things were pretty bad in the early-to-mid 90s, but have settled down somewhat since then. Guess many of the gang members are either dead or in jail. But back then though, it seemed that some kid was getting shot every night Got so bad, that in many areas (Hazelwood, for one) traffic lights were set to green all night. The city didn't want anyone to stop on the main street, for fear of getting shot Even now, I put my foot down when driving through there.

Not just there either. The neighborhood I work in, has had several drug raids. In fact, there was one in the building next door...after an FBI agent was killed. Seems the suspect was somehow "connected" to the building. Found out later, that he was using his mother's apartment to store his wares That wasn't the only raid...there have been a few since then.

Thought I'd mention this too--rural SW PA now has a meth problem. Why? Well, most of the area is remote and sparsely populated. Like moonshine, the stuff can be made in a shed cheaply, anywhere up in the hills.

[Hobbs]

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.

From Wiki:

District of Columbia v. Heller
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) ruled that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."[145][146][147][148]

To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the Court said:[149]

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[HYHYBT]

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

Do you have any justification at all for such a broad, sweeping claim? Is it not even possible for people to believe that things they don't happen to want to do, or even think ought not be done by anyone, should nonetheless be legal?

[Hobbs]

Do you have any justification at all for such a broad, sweeping claim? Is it not even possible for people to believe that things they don't happen to want to do, or even think ought not be done by anyone, should nonetheless be legal?

I'd like to think people are purely thinking of laws being unjust and wanting them repealed. But at Mad Mike's own supposition, he wants it repealed; and uses. Sorry if I see that as proof that he just doesn't want to get busted.

[MadMike]

. But at Mad Mike's own supposition, he wants it repealed; and uses. Sorry if I see that as proof that he just doesn't want to get busted.

I never said I did. Do you really think it's not possible for someone not to use and still think it shouldn't be illegal?

[Stormraven]

Regarding the use of substances like alcohol and drugs on the job, I think I dealt with that, but I'll be clear.

That falls to the employer to enforce. No employer with any sense wants someone high or drunk working for them - whether in charge of a 2,000 pound machine, a drill press, Air Traffic Control, or just bank deposits.

There is no need for laws about that. And if the employer drops the ball, and someone is hurt, then the employee gets criminal negligence (or worse) charges, and the employer gets dinged for negligence.

My whole point is, and has been, that adding more laws doesn't necessarily work, where using the ones we have, and using them properly, can.

[Rapscallion]

I never said I did. Do you really think it's not possible for someone not to use and still think it shouldn't be illegal?

I'm quite happy for prostitution to be legal, but I have no intention of using one.

Rapscallion

[MadMike]

I'm quite happy for prostitution to be legal, but I have no intention of using one.

Thank you for proving my point. I feel the same way. The late great George Carlin once raised the question, "Why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?"

That being said, even if it was legal I still wouldn't pay for it. I'd feel like a complete loser if the only way I was able to get some was to pay someone.

[smileyeagle1021]

I never said I did. Do you really think it's not possible for someone not to use and still think it shouldn't be illegal?

I know several people who think that marriage to someone of the same gender should be legal even though I know they have exactly zero interest in marrying someone of the same gender.

[Hobbs]

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

I believe I misunderstood this post you placed then. The first phrase seems to claim that your "no desire" for harder drugs leaves a desire for "softer" drugs.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I'm curious, how do you determine the point at which the actions of one person affect another?

Let' say heroin is legal. A guy smokes heroin but eventually his habit gets worse. He loses his job because he's constantly stone, he loses his house and all his money. He alienates his family and now must resort to homeless shelters or other means for food.

In this example the drug user is having an effect not only on himself but on his family, his employer (since they must now spend money hiring and training someone to fill his position) and others who are involved with supplying food and supplies for homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

All of us have our own moral and ethical guidelines that determine what actions we take in certain circumstances.

The question of "would I report someone smoking pot at work?" is a little more complex when you consider friendships and loyalty and whatnot. Personally I probably would report the person even if it were a friend because that behavior could cause problems for the company and potential danger for the customers.

But if it were say my neighbor I knew was actively smoking weed on his front porch I'm not so sure I would report him. It's not directly affecting me so it's a tougher call.

[MadMike]

I believe I misunderstood this post you placed then. The first phrase seems to claim that your "no desire" for harder drugs leaves a desire for "softer" drugs.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear on that.

What I meant was that I don't think pot is any worse than legal stuff like alcohol and tobacco. I've even heard that it may have some benefits, such as easing pain associated with cancer (which apparently runs in my dad's side of my family) and migraines (which I get quite frequently.)

The harder stuff, like cocaine and heroin don't provide any benefits that I've ever heard of, and can be harmful. Someone once told me that I'm probably too high-strung to handle something like cocaine, and that it wold probably kill me. And from what I've heard about heroin, that's just some nasty shit and you can get addicted the second or even the first time you try it. And someone very close to me died from it.

That being said, I still don't feel the government should be able to tell adults what they can and can't put into their own bodies. As far as CCt2's argument about it affecting the people around the user, the same thing can happen to someone who becomes an alcoholic, and yet alcohol is still legal, provided that you're 21 or older.

Some people will argue that some drug users will steal or commit other crimes to support their habit. We already have laws against stealing, whether the reason is drug-related or not, so I don't see why we need to ruin people's lives for something trivial like smoking the dried leaves of a certain plant, especially when smoking the dried leaves of a certain other plant is perfectly legal, provided that you're 18 or older. The guy who unwinds with a joint on the weekends in the privacy of his own home is not hurting anyone else.

Aside from the whole drug argument, some of the others have provided excellent examples. I have no desire to hire a prostitute, but I don't think people should have their lives ruined simply for paying another consenting adult for sex. And I have no desire to have sex with another man (still on the books in some areas, just not really enforced), and certainly no desire to marry one. But I think if consenting adults want to, they should be able to.

Hope this clears things up.