this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
787 points (89.4% liked)

Political Memes

5403 readers
5267 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

FFS, Weed doesn't affect anyone who doesn't choose to be affected. It doesn't even need to be smoked. Ever hear the term "nanny state"?

I don't know what point you're trying to make but if you honestly can't understand the difference between a victimless crime and a real crime, I can't communicate with you on this topic.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Driving through red lights doesn't affect anyone either than. I make it through the intersection, nobody gets hurt and everybody gets what they want. We're arguing same thing. Both are victimless crimes.

[–] 9bananas@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you are NOT arguing the same thing:

  • you making it through an intersection at a red light requires luck. you need to get lucky, every time, or someone fucking dies. a dead person is a fucking victim, therefore it's not a "victimless crime"

  • weed can't kill you. that's why it's a victimless crime. in extremely rare cases it can cause mental health problems, but only in the person taking it.

the difference is that in one case YOU are responsible for harming someone else, in the other case they did it to themselves AND it's extremely rare AND it's not based on random luck.

these situations are not even close to being the same thing.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

In the context of what people have said here they are the same.

Luck has nothing to do with victimless crime. I can safely navigate running red lights and be as safe as smoking weed.

Increases stoners increases amount of stoned drivers on the road. Increasing risk to all drivers.

Smoking anything increases risk of disease. Inhaling any burning substance increases risk both to mental and physical health. Increasing demand on medical systems already stretched thin. Who says a pot head doesn't kick someone out of prompt medical care by taking up a bed or service.

But again increasing risk doesn't create any victims. We've said no victimless crime should exist. Unless they should exist and that risk to public is a viable reason to create a law.