But it IS the law therefore anyone arrested for committing a crime is NOT a victim. You just make yourself look silly with comparing drug related crimes to Nazi Germany.
Sorry you can’t seem to grasp that if a law does exist and it’s broken that the person breaking said law is not a victim.
Having a sane drug policy as opposed to an insane draconian one is not about condoning anything other than having a sane drug policy. You are barking up the wrong tree.
All you're doing is reinforcing the fact that you're totally clueless. Nothing above is about unjust laws that victimize, it's just a blanket generalization on your part.
Anyone who willingly breaks the law is not a victim. Again, not sure why you struggle with this concept.
Tell you what.....you work on changing the laws and I'll try to find out why people want to alter their minds and why that is so important to them. Therein lies the solution.
What's funny is people like Bob0627 say that buying and using drugs is a victim-less crime but what they fail to realize is that many who are addicted to drugs end up stealing from others to get money to support their habit. What about the families ripped apart because of drug addiction? What about kids left fatherless or motherless because of dying from overdose? There are plenty of victims when it comes to illegal drug use of addictive drugs.
How many lifes have been lost that could potentially have been saved by drugs like LSD or psylocibin (or at least further research in how their positive effects come about), but weren't because of legal status and heavy stigmatization? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-lsd-dmt-amphetamines-ketamine-a8395511.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082376/
That's just false. When laws unjustly remove people's rights to liberty, they are victims of that law. No, you just make it clear that you have no regard for fact or logic when you claim anything that is legal must be rightful. Nazi Germany is only a more extreme example of how your absurd views play out in reality. There are many other historical examples that prove your claims are false and evil, from slavery (which the US prison system has revived) and Jim Crow to Islamic blasphemy laws and the Edicts of Diocletian.
Whether it's "unjust" or not...if someone breaks a law they are not a victim. Nazi Germany is an absurd example. It is nowhere near equivalent to illegal drug laws. My lord....
Huh?? They have to steal because PROHIBITION has made their drugs absurdly expensive!! Are you really so innocent of fact and logic that you can't figure that out? Do people who are addicted to legal drugs like alcohol or nicotine steal to buy booze or cigarettes? What about families ripped apart by religious differences? You going to ban religion, too? Give your head a shake. You going to ban cars because accidents leave orphans? How about Twinkies? Mountain climbing? You need to stop typing and start thinking. There are victims of lots of different kinds of foolish and risky behavior, from marital infidelity and binge drinking to football and snowboarding. What part of "inalienable right to... pursuit of happiness" are you having so much trouble understanding?
Already proved false. Right. I proved your views are objectively false by the logical form known as "reductio ad absurdum," meaning that I proved your views imply absurd consequences. I didn't say it was equivalent. I proved it is logically entailed by your views. Google "reductio ad absurdum" and start reading.
Wait...what? Um no...they steal because they can't keep a job because of their drug habit (see heroin, meth). Haha...did you seriously try to claim religion is ripping families apart like a drug addict does? Yet another absurd comparison...cars and meth...yup...those are equivalent. SMFH. A car gets people to work or used to run errands, visit friends, etc. And what purpose is it for someone to get hooked on heroin or meth and be strung out? Your other comparisons as just as absurd as the car example.
No, you made that up. Understanding that people have a right to liberty does not mean I approve of everything they might choose to do while exercising that right. Lots of perfectly legal drugs do likewise -- including some that you almost certainly use yourself, like alcohol. It has some risks, as even ordinary foods often do. The biggest risk for diabetes is sugar-sweetened soda consumption. You going to ban that, too? Google "fetal alcohol syndrome" and start reading. No, you do not. You are very far from understanding liberty. Liberty does not just mean people have the liberty to do what you think they should be allowed to do. For a few people. Same as alcohol, nicotine, gambling, etc. No. You made that up. What I say is that trying to prohibit that kind of bondage leads to worse consequences for society than just letting consenting adults exercise their rights to liberty. And I am objectively correct about that.
False. Many drug addicts are able to hold jobs, including doctors, lawyers, police officers, prison guards and politicians. Addicts only get into trouble and steal because an ordinary job doesn't yield enough income to buy prohibited drugs. Before heroin was banned, there were an estimated 250,000 heroin addicts in the USA, most of them ordinary housewives but many of them working men. They were typically not very healthy (opiates are very constipating), but they were certainly able to work and go about their lives because they were able to afford the drug. I've experienced it in my own family. <sigh> Do you know what the word, "logic" means? I.e., people pursuing their own happiness in ways that don't happen to bother you. That's their business, not yours. Google "reductio ad absurdum" and start reading.
So you agree there are drug addicts who do steal to support their habit....thank you. Anecdotal evidence means nothing Hahaha...many drug addicts would disagree they are pursing happiness. They are actually pursing the need for a fix because of their addiction.
The facts I identified are proof. I most certainly did. Having studied it at an internationally respected university, if there is one subject I am confident I know a lot better than you, it is logic. So you refuse even to inform yourself of the relevant principles of logic. Inevitably.