|
|
 Originally Posted by ImSavy
It was never implied one was victimless just that one is a crime.
If you go back and read what Keith said, it was implied that marijuana was not a victimless crime because it impairs people's driving.
But it's not selling the drug that causes the victims, it's the people using it irresponsibly. If you want to argue marijuana should be illegal because someone could get hurt by using it irresponsibly, logically you'd have to also ban not just alcohol, but pretty much everything from power tools to food processors to cars for the same reason.
Ergo, whether or not marijuana is victimless or victimfull (resulting in victims) by such a categorisation is irrelevant, since such a categorisation, if applied across the board, would be absurd as a means of determining law.
Conversely, if you use a more reasonable standard of victimfull that requires an action that causes direct harm to another, such as rape or murder, marijuana would not fall into that category and thus would be considered a victimless crime.
|
Reply With Quote