Six Scotland Yard officers are accused of 'waterboarding' drug suspects

Von Smallhausen · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:19

Energize said:
Theft, murder, rape, vandalism, fraud, gordon brown etc, you know one of those crimes where there's an actual victim, not someone getting high at the weekend and not hurting anyone else but themselves.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Example, Mr X likes his snort of charlie at the weekend. Where does the stuff come from ? How many people have been exploited, threatened, assaulted or killed during the manufacturing, refining and importation process ?

How many people are threatened, maimed or killed for control of the ' rights ' to the cocaine from its manufacture to distribution ? There are victims at almost every step be it abroad or in this country.

Shoplifting. It's a victimless crime.

Is it ? Who has to take the financial loss of the stolen item ? The store, in other words the victim.

There is always a victim to crime be it directly or otherwise.

Energize · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:23

AcidHell2 said:
Those addicted to it will still commit crimes to fund their drugs.

But they wouldn't when they cost so little at a pharmacy and could be obtained on drugs programs.

It will still wreck many peoples lives, kill people and/or make some people mentally ill.

Responsiblity is the price of freedom.

Von Smallhausen said:
There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Example, Mr X likes his snort of charlie at the weekend. Where does the stuff come from ? How many people have been exploited, threatened, assaulted or killed during the manufacturing, refining and importation process ?

How many people are threatened, maimed or killed for control of the ' rights ' to the cocaine from its manufacture to distribution ? There are victims at almost every step be it abroad or in this country.

Who is harmed if someone guys to the pharmacy and buys co-codamol for example?

There is always a victim to crime be it directly or otherwise.

Who was the victim of the homosexuality crime in the 60's? No one, there you go, a victimless crime, just because the government say it's illegal doesn't mean there's a victim, as my above example shows.

Moley · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:23

Von Smallhausen said:
There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Just to be pedantic - what about the person who speeds at 80 miles per hour down the motorway at 3 am when the road is empty. He gets home safely (as he does every day) and goes to bed.

He has commited a crime by breaking the speed limit - but where is the victim?

Without being disrespectful, the police always trot out the "There is no such thing as a victimless crime" line when clearly that just isn't true. However I agree with you that the backdrop to supposedly innocent drug use is a nasty black market economy of abuse and violence that we can well do without.

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:25

Energize said:
But they wouldn't when they cost so little at a pharmacy and could be obtained on drugs programs.

Responsiblity is the price of freedom.

freedom is fine as long as it does not affect others. taking some drugs does.

cheap? it's not going to be cheap. It will be darn expensive with tax on it and free drug programs are only good if the drug itself is illegal.

Moley · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:25

AcidHell2 said:
No it's a bad idea because it's a terrible idea which wont work.

You seem very sure of this so you must have some proof. Good! I need something interesting to read - link please.

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:26

Moley said:
the police always trot out the "There is no such thing as a victimless crime" line when clearly that just isn't true. t.

Name one.

GSDog · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:26

Moley said:
Just to be pedantic - what about the person who speeds at 80 miles per hour down the motorway at 3 am when the road is empty. He gets home safely (as he does every day) and goes to bed.

He has commited a crime by breaking the speed limit - but where is the victim

The insects that you kill.

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:27

Moley said:
You seem very sure of this so you must have some proof. Good! I need something interesting to read - link please.

Nope. it's called common sense.
Still waiting for the report that has combined legalised drugs, with free drug clinics and how it has helped society.

Moley · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:28

AcidHell2 said:
Name one.

Erm... the hypothetical crime I listed at the start of my post? Did you miss that bit in your hurry to respond to my post?

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:28

Moley said:
He has commited a crime by breaking the speed limit - but where is the victim?

t.

The 10's of people killed every year by inappropriate speed, when some one losses control or the many more injured, the financial damage ect.

Energize · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:29

AcidHell2 said:
freedom is fine as long as it does not affect others. taking some drugs does.

You can take any drug without it affecting others.

cheap? it's not going to be cheap. It will be darn expensive with tax on it and free drug programs are only good if the drug itself is illegal.

It would be much cheaper than drugs on the street which have 1000% profit margins, so much so that people wouldn't be worrying about their next fix.

Von Smallhausen · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:30

Who is harmed if I go to a pharmacy, buy paramol tablets and illegally extract the dihydrocodeine from them? Who is harmed if I buy gbl alloy cleaner and then synthesise ghb from it for my personal use?

You can be a victim as well.

Who was the victim of the homosexuality crime in the 60's? No one, there you go, a victimless crime, just because the government say it's illegal doesn't mean there's a victim, as my above example shows.

Nobody was and the fallibility of the thinking was eventually seen through the prejudiced mist and the law was repealed.

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:31

Energize said:
It would be much cheaper than drugs on the street which have 1000% profit margins, so much so that people wouldn't be worrying about their next fix.

we'll have to disagree. drugs are not expensive and tax is likely to be at least 100s%. It would still cause crime and have an impact on society. nit just the people doing the drugs.

there's is a lot of evidence to support legalising some drugs, but certainly not all.

Moley · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:32

AcidHell2 said:
Nope. it's called common sense.
Still waiting for the report that has combined legalised drugs, with free drug clinics and how it has helped society.

Common sense is not objective though is it? It's something that changes depending on circumstances. What you see as common sense is in actual fact just your opinion on how things are - not to say that its not valid mind, I just happen to think that when prohibition isn't working well a little imagination needs to be used in looking for other options.

Energize · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:33

Von Smallhausen said:
You can be a victim as well.

You have more chance of dying horseriding than taking drugs like MDMA, so by that logic we should ban horseriding because you may be a victim. The police are not supposed to be nannies, freedom is more important that the risk of harming youself.

Von Smallhausen · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:33

Moley said:
Just to be pedantic - what about the person who speeds at 80 miles per hour down the motorway at 3 am when the road is empty. He gets home safely (as he does every day) and goes to bed.

He has commited a crime by breaking the speed limit - but where is the victim?

To be pedantic in return .... speeding is not a crime. It is not recorded as a theft, robbery etc would be. It is illegal but it is not a crime. If you want an explanation on that please contact the Home Office.

Without being disrespectful, the police always trot out the "There is no such thing as a victimless crime" line when clearly that just isn't true. However I agree with you that the backdrop to supposedly innocent drug use is a nasty black market economy of abuse and violence that we can well do without.

Perhaps it is just me then but I have not dealt with a victimless crime in my 9 years on the force.

Moley · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:34

AcidHell2 said:
The 10's of people killed every year by inappropriate speed, when some one losses control or the many more injured, the financial damage ect.

They are other incidents of speeding - not the one I was talking about and if the driver in that case had been pulled over he wouldn't have been taken to court and charged with all those incidents you described because he is not responsible for them.

Thousands of people in this country speed every day (effectively commiting a crime) but no one gets hurt. Ergo they are victimless crimes.

Moley · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:36

Von Smallhausen said:
Perhaps it is just me then but I have not dealt with a victimless crime in my 9 years on the force.

Do you deny that the thousands of people who speed every day but who don't have an accident are commiting an offence?

If you agree that they are commiting an offence then please point out the victim of this offence because I just can't see one.

The people who speed and do hurt someone - that's a different matter.

EDIT: Yes I have switched the term "crime" with "offence" because the general public see the two as interchangable - unlike currently serving police officers with a better grip of the sematics of the law....

Von Smallhausen · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:37

Energize said:
You have more chance of dying horseriding than taking drugs like MDMA, so by that logic we should ban horseriding because you may be a victim. The police are not supposed to be nannies, freedom is more important that the risk of harming youself.

The difference being is that possession of MDMA is illegal and possession of a horse is not. Logic of that argument is another matter.

Police are not nannies. They enforce the laws that are on the statute books that have been put there by politicians. If that law changes and the previously illegal activity is no longer against the law then so be it.

Glaucus · 10 Jun 2009 at 15:39

but one causes the other.
Just like drink driving. they may get caught and be "no victims". but then if left they could crash and cause deaths.

So do you think drink driving law should be removed?