Victimless crime is a term used to refer to behaviour that is illegal but does not violate or threaten the rights of anyone. It can include situations where an individual acts alone as well as consensual acts in which two or more persons agree to commit a criminal offence in which no other person is involved.

The issue in situations of victimless crime is the same. Society has created a formal framework of laws to prohibit types of conduct thought to be against the public interest. Laws proscribing homicide, assaults and rape are common to most cultures. Thus, when the supposed victim freely consents to be the victim in one of these crimes, the question is whether the state should make an exception from the law for this situation.

Take assisted suicide as an example. If one person intentionally takes the life of another, this is usually murder. If the motive for this is to collect the inheritance, society has no difficulty in ignoring the motive and convicting the killer. But if the motive is to relieve the suffering of the victim by providing a clean death that would otherwise be denied, can society so quickly reject the motive?

It is a case of balancing the harms. On the one hand, society could impose pain and suffering on the victim by forcing him or her to endure a long decline into death. Or society could permit a system for terminating life under controlled circumstances so that the victim's wishes could be respected without exposing others to the criminal system for assisting in realising those wishes.

This includes the elderly and seriously ill as well as less obvious scenarios. For example, helping someone such as a celebrity facing exposure for socially unacceptable behaviour who seeks a gun or other means to end life; a driver trapped in a burning tanker full of gasoline who begs a passing armed police officer to shoot him rather than let him burn to death; a person who suffers traumatic injury in a road accident and wishes to avoid the humiliation and pain of a lingering slow death.

These situations are distinguishable from soliciting the cessation of life-sustaining treatment so that an injured or ill person may die a natural death, or leaving instructions not to resuscitate in the event of death.

Consideration of victimless crime involving more than one participant needs to take account of whether all the participants are capable of giving genuine consent. This may not be the case if one or more of the participants are:
- Animals
- Children (normally measured as being under the legal age of consent)
- Severely mentally ill
- Not fully informed about the issues involved
- Suffering from mood swings
- Acting under duress
- Addicted
- Intoxicated
- Unconscious


Libertarianism focuses on the autonomy of the individual, asserting each person's right to live their lives with the least possible interference from the law. Libertarians do not necessarily approve, sanction or endorse the victimless action that is criminalised. Indeed, they may strongly disapprove. Where they differ from non-libertarians is their belief that the government should be exceedingly reluctant to intervene. People are entitled to live their lives and make their own choices whether or not those choices are wise or the same as others would make, provided they do so voluntarily and without infringing the rights of others.
 
CCP Policy
Without necessarily supporting, advocating or approving of them, the CCP does not generally support the criminalisation of victimless crimes. Wherever possible it will seek to reduce the intrusion of government into these areas.

It nonetheless recognises that not all victimless crimes are capable of being entirely de-regulated. It acknowledges there may be unintended coercive consequences from re-legalisation and that some regulation may be warranted in specific instances.

 
Specific policies
1. No criminalisation of activities in which the participant is the only person likely to suffer adverse consequences. Examples include dangerous and unwise actions such as failing to wear a crash helmet or BASE jumping.

2. No criminalisation of consumption of pornography involving adults by adults (with safeguards to protect children).

3. No criminalisation of abortion other than for later term abortions where the foetus would be viable if born naturally.

4. No criminalisation of prostitution involving adults.

5. No criminalisation of assisted suicide where a free and informed choice has been made.

6. Re-legalisation of recreational marijuana use by adults (subject to prohibition on involvement of minors, etc) and a review of prohibitions on certain other drugs.

The CCP also favours strong sanctions against crimes that infringe the rights of others, whether deliberately or through negligence.

Hmmmm... 1 & 2 fine.


3. You need to acknowledge that many people would consider an unborn child to be a victim of an abortion.

4. Prostitution often becomes a desperate trap for those involved. While prostitution itself should not be illegal imo, organising it and soliciting it should be.

5. All very well, but how can you be sure that a free and informed choice has been made?

6. Hell no. Legalising marijuana would create many victims: for one thing, the friends, relatives and dependents of those who develop an addiction or, even worse, subsequent mental disease. Also, those who find themselves unable to recieve medical treatment on the NHS, because health resources are being diverted to tackle the increase in mental disorders and to provide funding for support programmes for those hoping to break the addiction. Furthermore, the legalisation of such drugs would inevitably lead to much greater consumption and an increase in drug-related accidents such as drug-driving.

Side note; why does fast reply only work in certain subforums?

1 & 2, thankyou.

3. Perhaps, but this wouldn't change the policy?

4. I disagree here, how would brothels exploit their prostitutes unless they were doing something illegal? Eg, harrassing them to work for less money, more shifts etc which would come under workplace relations laws for harrassment by the employer. Sure, they might be embarrassed to approach the Government if their 'pimp' (for lack of a better word) is treating them poorly, but I'd suggest we have a sex worker outlet for people in this situation.

5. Because the person has to be of sound mind and character. If the law prevents rational adults from making free choices about what we can do with our own bodies then we are not really free at all, because our bodies do not belong to us but to the State.

When cancer, degenerative disease or some other ailment renders our life no longer worth living, if we are genuinely free we should be able to choose to end our lives. We should be able to escape pain and the tragic indignities of a failing body and die painlessly and peacefully, as medical technology currently permits.

5. The decision to support someone on a 'high level marijuana use' is the decision of the family themselves as an individual, not a government. High level marijuana use is absolutely no different to high level alcohol consumption, except that sudden binge drinking can result in passing out or even death whereas sudden 'binge marijuana' consumption does not. It's a case of we either ban alcohol, or legalise marijuana.

3. I'm just disputing the idea that the crime is victimless.

4. Look up human trafficking.

5. How do you prevent coercian? Also, what measures would you be able to take to prevent involuntary euthenasia taking place and subsequently being covered up?

6. Alcohol cannot be banned because it is too deeply rooted in our society. There is no point shutting the stable door after a horse had bolted. But that doesn't mean you should open other all the other stable doors. Also, you need to note that unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis can lead to the development of psychotic behaviour. Also, you haven't addressed my point about the almost certain increase in "under the influence" offenses taking place.

EDIT: claim removed.

You have my support on this, as long as the prostitution is regulated to keep it safe and clean(as in disease free, not morally). Also, marijuana use doesnt make people twats like alcohol, and they wouldnt be as likely to commit crimes as under the influence of alcohol, theres probably some research out there, but I cant be bothered to go looking now. (Although I cant argue on this, its just an assumption, however the effects of marijuana do make people less likely to actually do stuff,, and just generally sit around)

Whoops, wrote a bit more then I expected.

3. If it is a viable human then sure, there is a victim, but late stage abortions will still be banned. There is nothing resembling a human in an early stage fetus.

4. Like all countries, there will be human trafficking safe guards. Given we are a 1st world country with strong customs and border security it is safe to assume human trafficking would be marginal. Regardless, human trafficking does not occur in legitimate brothels, only home-based brothels which don't operate under the law regardless.

5. With multiple doctor’s approval including a psychiatric appraisal, you can stamp out coercion. This also covers your 2nd point.

6. Please read this with an open mind, and not a closed 'drugs are bad mmkay mind' - Under the influence offences will be penalised the same way that under alcohol influence offences are. It will be illegal to operate a motor vehicle, aircraft etc whilst under the influence of drugs because this infringes on the rights of other road users, who have the right to a safe passage. Cannabis can lead to psychotic behavior, sure, but it is unfair to say that alcohol does not. Alcoholism causes a wide range of mental health effects with as many as 25% of alcoholics presenting psychiatric disturbances including anxiety and depression. Psychosis, confusion and organic brain syndrome is induced with chronic alcohol abuse which worsens as part of alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Due to distortion of the neurochemical system, panic disorders can easily develop due to even moderate alcohol consumption.

The social problems arising from alcoholism can be massive and are caused in part due to the serious pathological changes induced in the brain from prolonged alcohol misuse and partly because of the intoxicating effects of alcohol as mentioned before. Being drunk or hung over during work hours can result in loss of employment, which can lead to financial problems including the loss of living quarters. Drinking at inappropriate times, and behavior caused by reduced judgment, can lead to legal consequences, such as criminal charges for drunk driving or public disorder, or civil penalties for tortious behavior. An alcoholic's behavior and mental impairment while drunk can profoundly impact surrounding family and friends, possibly leading to marital conflict and divorce, or contributing to domestic violence. This can contribute to lasting damage to the emotional development of the alcoholic's children, even after they reach adulthood. The alcoholic could suffer from loss of respect from others who may see the problem as self-inflicted and easily avoided.

I present you with an image which was published in the medical journal, The Lancet. One of the world’s best-known and most respected general medical journals.



Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression, however, no causal mechanism has been proven, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from Cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use, while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.

Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes.




Edit: Haha damn, you deleted that claim. I spent so much time rebutting it.

Edit 2: I'd like to make it completely clear that I am not personally a cannabis or alcohol consumer, so there is no bias in the for argument and my judgement is not altered.

3. That's my point. People disagree over when life begins. Therefore, they would disagree over whether this is a victimless crime.

4. We have border controls?

5. Doctors can be bribed.

6. You're missing my points.
A) Horse bolting argument - why release another harmful drug on society when they're struggling to cope with existing ones?
B) Yes, of course under influence offenses would still be unlawful. My point is that, with more drugs available, the greater the number of incidents that will take place.

Also, I believe I'm right in saying that the "alcohol worse the cannabis" argument is only true for the general population, and that studies show that for those sane individuals who have a family history of mental disorder can be "triggered" by cannabis in a way that they can't be by alcohol. Also still, you say yourself that there may be a link in the general population - if there's any risk of there being a link at all, why legalise it? Anyways, it's an academic argument, because of my point A.

I 100% disagree with legalising Marajuana.

That's not to say I don't think it's worse than legal drugs, such as Alcohol, because I don't, and it isn't.

However, just because something's not as bad as something else, is not cause for it to be legalised. I would argue it's cause for the worse substance to be illegalised.

"6. Hell no. Legalising marijuana would create many victims: for one thing, the friends, relatives and dependents of those who develop an addiction or, even worse, subsequent mental disease. Also, those who find themselves unable to recieve medical treatment on the NHS, because health resources are being diverted to tackle the increase in mental disorders and to provide funding for support programmes for those hoping to break the addiction. Furthermore, the legalisation of such drugs would inevitably lead to much greater consumption and an increase in drug-related accidents such as drug-driving."

Sorry, I just wanted to rebut this. Even though it's partly already been done.

Victims as friends and families...in what way are these people victims? If anything they benefit, their friend/relative isn't going to prison or being prosecuted. The links between marijuana and mental illness are tenuous at best, and usually only cite its use during the formative years of the brain as a detrimental factor. No-one's advocating giving weed to schoolkids here.

Health resources being diverted. You actually believe that? It's near certain that legalising a drug such as weed would lead to an INCREASE in revenue. Tax it and regulate it. As it is, the government is paying out money to prosecute "offenders" as well as those who, as you claim, developed mental illnesses (though I doubt these are many). Legalising/decriminalising cannabis as a narcotic means loads of funds are freed up in bureaucracy and law and order.

The "greater consumption due to legalisation" argument has been proved false in pretty much every nation which has legalised/decriminalised drugs. Indeed, Portugal, which decriminalised drug usage across the board, has seen a DROP in drug usage since it was instituted. Likewise the "gateway drug" argument doesn't hold water, as seen in places such as Amsterdam.

Your entire arguments are based pretty much on propaganda from the anti-drug lobbies. If we use them correctly, drugs can be a boon, not a cost, to our economy...

3. This will always happen. Is it worse to raise a child in a house that does not want the child at all, or to terminate when it is not actually a human? What will the affects be on the child in an unwanted home? I already feel sorry for this hypothetical child.

4. Safe to assume we do? Who else is stopping the immigrants?

5. 3 doctors including a psychologist?

6. A) Where is the evidence that we are stuggling on coping with alcoholism or other drugs? Would it be fair to suggest that we should reduce the amount of alcohol in beverages then?

B ) Whether it is legalised or not, there will still be cannabis consumption. This is a certain fact. The problem we have now though is there are no support mechanisms inplace, or taxation inplace for cannabis. There is just rampant illegal consumption which I'm sure (OOC: and I'm sure you can backup from a youth observation) will continue for ever.

In life there are risks, this is something we cannot get around. When a new medicinal drug is released, there is a risk of certain potentially fatal side effects. If we mitigate risk alltogether, we'll just be sitting in a boxed in room with padded walls. Even then, there is a risk that we'll eat the padding. What matters is the scale of the risk. Research has proven that the correlation between cannabis and sudden mental disorders is incredibly slight. It basically just does not happen.

Also, people do not mix alcohol and cannabis consumption at the same time, this (from what I'm told) makes them incredibly ill. So instead of this group of youth binge drinking beer from 4pm until 4am, getting violent and stabbing people of a different ethnicity, they will just get stoned in their parents garage and have a more more sobre quiet time.

Cieran, first of all give me the respect of actually reading my arguments before attacking them. I have at no point used the gateway drug argument.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that there are no negative psychological effects from smoking cannabis? My understanding on the subject is that it's still a matter of dispute and that no consensus has been reached - if there's any significant doubt, why release it upon the population?

Furthermore, in cases were countries have legalised cannabis, it has usually been after a period of lax or non-enforcement of the law, not a sudden switch.

Victims - yes, a person who sees a friend or a relative lose their mind because of cannabis use is a victim. And before you quote another report at me, let me ask you what your opinion of the anecdotal evidence is - lies?

Tax, you may have a point - but bear in mind that tax and regulation can be easily dodged. There's always room for a black market.

Schoolkids... yes, because obviously, schoolkids are never going to get hold of age-restricted products. :rolleyes:

3&5. I think, for the sake of the hypothetical child and it's hypothetical grandparents, we should probably just agree to disagree on this issue. It's a matter of moral codes, you're not going to get a happy comprimise.

4. Why do the immigrants need to be stopped?

6.

A) Ideally, yes. In practice, no, because people won't stand for it. Heck, the government has enough trouble at the moment trying to prevent people from distilling their own spirits. Any attempt at prohibition would end in failure.

B) Nothing new to say here, I've answered the arguments already.

Right, yet so wrong.

You are correct in stating it'll happen whether it's illegal or not.

However, you have used this statement to suggest that legalising it wouldn't change anything. It's a reversed form of the Republican belief that illegalising Firearms wouldn't lower Gun Crime because criminals don't care about the law. At first glance it makes sense, but then you realise the statement is inherently flawed. If shops on the street can't sell guns to any passing stranger; if ammo can't be purchased at your nearest Walmart, how much harder will it be fore ciminals to obtain those guns.

It's the same here. Legalising Cannibis will cause people who'd never normall try it, because it's illegal, to try it.

Argue the "safer than alcohol" thing all you want, but don't use that ridiculously inaccurate phase as justification.

Incidentally, I'm possibly the only person on here who can successfully argue against decriminalising cannabis for the simple reason that I would quite happily see Alcohol and Cigarettes banned as well.

4. They don't, but there are still checks to ensure there is not rampage immigration correct?

3&5. Agree to disagree.


6. There is nothing either of us can add to the argument, and nor will either side be swayed. This is a differing policy issue, which is natural in the course of politics. Shall we just leave it at that?

It's probably for the best.

Firstly, "Furthermore, the legalisation of such drugs would inevitably lead to much greater consumption and an increase in drug-related accidents such as drug-driving." sounds pretty much like a gateway drug argument to me.

As SWB has said, there are no proven psychological issues. Most people out there who are well-adjusted individuals have used it. Barack Obama has used it. Michael Phelps used it. I'm sure most celebrities have at some time or another.

People don't tend to lose their minds because of cannabis use though. You're not going to degenerate into some mindless junkie intent on your next fix. We're not talking about legalising heroin or crack here. And if, as you say, this DID happen, it's going to happen whether it's legal or not. And if it's illegal, you can guarantee it'll be costing more financially.

Why would you dodge tax though? Governments have the pretty nice ability to undersell dealers. It's not weed, but the NHS, for example, can get a gram of heroin for around £6-8, where street value is around £80. Are you going to go to your local shady dealer and pay £80 for something that could well be dirty and cut, or are you going to go to your pharmacy and pay £10 for a clean and legal piece? If the government can do it cheaper, why would people turn to illegal sources? I'm sure weed is the same but cheaperIt's like Spotify. Rather than taking on piracy, the music industry has chosen to compete with it, and has shown some success.

But schoolkids will be taking weed whether it's legal or not. Nothing would change for them. Age-restriction or general restriction. A restriction's a restriction.

Essentially, people will take weed whether it's legal or not. You're not gonna stop that. Why not benefit from it rather than making criminals out of normal, everyday people?...

*groans*

This'll be my final post on the matter, as I'm tired and in a bad mood after reading all about how my drinking is going to kill me.


I was not using the gateway drug argument. I was saying that with legalisation will come increased consumption (unless the use of the drug has become so widespread at the time of legalisation so at to reach "critical mass", the point at which criminalisation is no longer a realistic option).

XXX has used Y, and hasn't developed Z is not an argument, so don't try it.

I never suggested it was an instant process - and people are more likely to be introduced to it if it were legal (based upon current consumption levels).

People do it for cigarettes.

MORE WILL.

MORE WILL.



And that's my say. Good night.

PS: Spotify rocks.

But no-where has seen an increase because of legality! Even with your argument that "there wasn't a problem before" this fact remains. For one thing there doesn't seem to be a huge problem in Ostentia. I think PJ has in the past confirmed this. Or it could have been another speaker. I forget.

As for your argument that "XXX using Y and not developing Z is not an argument", really it's less a case of XXX as of several million Xs having used Y and not developed Z. Isn't the study of effects on X by Y pretty much integral to science as we know it anyway?

Stating that "more will do it" is pure conjecture anyway. And really, so what if more do it? If it's legal, we have to assume there are guidelines and other such things in place. So people know the risks. It's their own fault if, as you claim, something bad happens...

I don't think that marijuana should be legalised, but I also do not think that personal use should be treated as a crime which requires a prison sentence. I believethat for any personal drug use, compulsory rehab should be the sentence applied, as many drug users cannot help themselves.

Rehab is pointless for marijuana, it's not an addictive substance. And how are we going to fund all these thousands of people going into rehab?...

Marijuana itsself is not addictive, but the effects it creates are. Rehab would be a way of keeping the people who take Marijuana away from sources of it, so they can recover, and not need the effects of Marijuana.

Also, from what I have seen on the internet, prisons are often as expensive as rehab.

But I'm not saying they should go to prison. We shouldn't be doing anything with them. Marijuana is addictive in the same way video games or television is addictive - it's fun. We don't send those people to rehab/prison do we?...

But it is proven to cause PERMANENT mental diseases. Just drinking a bit of alcohol now again is unlikely to cause any permanent problems, but often marijuana causes very serious psychotic problems on the first use (Or according to video in Biology, anyway...) :blink:

No it isn't. We've said numerous times in this thread that there is a possible link but nothing conclusive. It's not a case of "often", it's a case of "rarely". Some people MAY. Should we ban cars too, because some people MAY die in accidents? Can assure you, there are many many more deaths on the road due to vehicles than there are deaths from drugs. Actually, marijuana generally has a death-rate of around zero people per year...

More people use cars than marijuana. Got any deaths per user statistics?

Well...nothing for the car thing, but as long as it's a statistic which is non-zero and positive it's higher. Marijuana is not a lethal drug. Deaths per user is approximately zero...

Statistics for problems caused by Marijuana is probably much lower than the true figure, because the victim/family of victim would not want themselves/a member of their family to be remembered as a "Druggie". It may also be lower because the family would not want their memories of the victim to be spoiled by his marijuana usage. (Biology and Sociology ^_^ )

Also, about cars, I would very much like them to be banned, but it is often essential for cars to be used in the event of emergency, when public transport can not travel fast enough. Marijuana is not essential in this way.

EDIT: There are also bound to be fewer deaths from Marijuana uage, as it is an illegal substance, so many will not use it for that reason. Therefore, with lower usage, there are likely to be fewer deaths.

Also, Marijuana can (Supposedly ^_^ ) cause deaths when used AS INTENDED, whereas cars would not cause problems directly unless a mistake is made by a pedestrian, the driver, etc.

There's nothing IN marijuana that's going to kill you though, if you take it as intended (ie, clean, unadulterated). Where you do get problems is with people mixing it with other substances. Even though it's illegal, many millions of people are still using it. If it, as you say, is deadly, then at least SOME people are gonna die from it.

Even if people don't go public about someone's cause of death, it still has to be notified by doctors on the death certificate (Medicine :P ).

If you want some sources, either do a Google search, or look here.

What you're mostly arguing from is what they've taught you in schools. Schools have been anti-drug forever now, and generally provide a very one-sided attitude (at least until you reach sixth form, when they pretty much resign themselves to the fact that you're doing them :P ). You've mentioned it yourself numerous times. They don't want us to do drugs, and for good reason, drugs are mind-altering. But it is up to people how they want their minds altered, not governments. I don't want MY mind altered, but if others want to do it to themselves, I say let 'em...

One argument not considered per se is accountability and moderation.

EG: A drug dealer is a criminal and therefore not likely to particularly care what his stuff is cut with. Nor does he worry about giving marijuana too strong for the persons in question.

By comparison, a national drug company would be accountable and under the eye of government sanction. What they cut it with is more likely to be watched, and more likely to be controlled. As is the strength of what is given.

In this case, if we accept people will "do it anyway", it is further seeable that legalising it allows it to be controlled. Not legalising it leaves it filthy and uncontrollable.

(And yes, I support legalisation)