This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Victimless Crimes
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And you demonstrate my point. Money isn't the problem, it's actions done in conjunction with the money that cause harm. So why is terrorism-financing considered horribly illegal and bannable, but drug-abuse not?
...we discipline people who have already misused them...
It's no different than cars. We're not banning cars, we're not banning money, we shouldn't ban drugs, we shouldn't ban guns, etc. If someone misuses the car/money/drugs/gun they can be disciplined.
Post by
Squishalot
So why is terrorism-financing considered horribly illegal and bannable, but drug-abuse not?
You haven't answered the question.
We are banning the distribution of money to people who will misuse them, an act you appear to support (certainly, you've tried to justify it on the basis that it causes indirect harm in the hands of terrorists).
At the moment, we're banning the distribution of drugs to people who will misuse them too. Here, you're suggesting that the distribution shouldn't be acted against, and that one should only act against the actual misuse of the drugs. Again, why would you want to allow one, but not the other?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So why is terrorism-financing considered horribly illegal and bannable, but drug-abuse not?
Two things to consider.
1) Are you asking me
why
our legal system is the way it is? I have no idea -- maybe they're all high on crack. I can tell you the same thing I've been saying up to now: the way it
should
be. Money is not illegal even though it can be misused, cars are not illegal even though they can be misused, drugs therefore should not be illegal if your only argument is that they can be misused. The actual misuse is punishable: if I kill someone
with my car
, I'm charged with murder and have my license suspended. If I kill someone while on drugs, I should be charged with murder and have my drug use curtailed. If I pay terrorist groups, I should be charged with terrorism and have my money use curtailed.
2) What do you mean by drug abuse? Normally that just mean overdosing, and that's not what we're talking about.
We are banning the distribution of money to people who will misuse them, an act you appear to support (certainly, you've tried to justify it on the basis that it causes indirect harm in the hands of terrorists).
But I'm not banning money! I'm banning the use of it for other illegal means. Likewise don't ban drugs! Ban the use of it for other illegal purposes.
At the moment, we're banning the distribution of drugs to people who will misuse them too.
You're defining misuse as overdosing. We don't ban someone for spending "too much money."
Post by
MyTie
1) Are you asking me
why
or legal system is the way it is?
A little off topic, but you are no longer allowed to point out my spelling mistakes. Your spell checker didn't save you here.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
1) Are you asking me
why
or legal system is the way it is?
A little off topic, but you are no longer allowed to point out my
spelling
diction
mistakes. Your spell checker didn't save you here.
u can haz gold star!
Pointing out diction/spelling mistakes is exactly what I want; I can't fix it if I don't notice it and no one tells me.
Post by
MyTie
Pointing out diction/spelling mistakes is exactly what I want; I can't fix it if I don't notice it and no one tells me.
Someday, someone might care about your awesome grammer, but not today.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not defining it as OD'ing. Where did you get that idea from?
Not really. I'm not talking about self-harm, I'm talking about harm to the community.
Public drunkenness and drug taking is probably the primary correlating factor of late-night violent behaviour. That doesn't prove that it's causal, certainly, but I bet that the statistics show that a higher proportion of drugged up people cause violence on others than non-drugged up people.
Sorry if you thought I was anything but clear as to what my view of drug misuse is, in a similar vein to money misuse - the impact on the community, not the individual. I really couldn't care less if drug abusers OD'd and dropped dead, since they gave up their own right to life by starting on drugs in the first place. I'm thinking of the families who won't be terrorised by crazed guys high on ice, the ones who'll have money to buy food now that cash isn't wasted on drug usage.
When I've used the term drug misuse or abuse, I've generally been referring to the people who take drugs, then commit crimes and misdeeds while under the influence. I'm suggesting that these guys are no different from terrorists who use money to commit crimes and misdeeds. The only difference is that one is intentional and one is consequential.
But I'm not banning money! I'm banning the use of it for other illegal means. Likewise don't ban drugs! Ban the use of it for other illegal purposes.
You're completely misunderstanding me. How can I put this clearer?
YOU ARE SUPPORTING BANNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY TO TERRORISTS.
Not banning money.
Not banning the use of money.
I'm saying that you're supporting the ban on the
distribution
(key word here) of money to terrorists. This is before the terrorists have done anything with the money. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and you yourself have justified this earlier in this thread (assuming that you didn't misunderstand it back then). But how is this any different to distributing drugs to criminals, before they've done anything with the drugs?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Someday, someone might care about your awesome grammar, but not today.
Someone does -- me! I care about getting my point across correctly and understanding other people's points correctly.
So if you'd like to bugger off now, that would be dandy. If you don't care, then don't act like you do.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Use and distribution are the exact same thing with money -- money exists for the sole purpose of being distributed. That's where is gets it's value. You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.
Drugs on the other hand do have a clear distinction between the two.
Post by
Squishalot
I call BS. Money is a man made construct that exists for the sole purpose of placing value on something. You've got the idea of money completely the wrong way around. It is a convenient way of measuring the value of goods and services. Use and distribution are two completely separate things.
Drugs and money fall into the exact same category, because you can supplant any use and distribution of either with each other. That would be why drugs and money are interchangeable... and why any good/service and money are interchangeable. Because money doesn't exist in its own right, it exists for the purpose of valuing goods and services.
Go find me a source that suggests that 'use' and 'distribution' are the exact same thing with money, in the context that we're using it here. To help clarify, since you'll misinterpret me otherwise, 'use' implies the giving up of money for goods and services. 'Distribution' implies giving up of money so that other someone else can use it. I personally see a great distinction between the two, and can't see any other way you can interpret it in the context that I've been using it, so I'm curious to see what you come up with.
In the meantime, it's late here, so I'm heading off. By the way, I'm still waiting for responses on:
a) Voting rights discussion
b) Party/political system reform discussion
Just a friendly reminder. It's courtesy to either concede that the other person is right, come to a communal conclusion, or to throw your hands up in the air and make a big hue and cry about how stupid the other person is, if you're going to walk away from a discussion.
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
And remember kids, if you think drugs are ok...then the terrorists win!
/facepalm
I lol'd.
Then again, terrorist money is often funded from drug money and other criminal activities, so... *cough*
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Alcohol and Tobacco are much worse for your body than Marijuana. So don't even try to say that.
Most of the revenue for criminal organizations come from cocaine last I heard, and I don't think anyone really thinks that cocaine should be illegal anyway. The gateway theory is bull^&*!, so don't even bring that up either.
Basically, this just comes down to people (usually religious people, because they trust what Republicans tell them, and then have trouble getting a notion out of their head) being told by politicians who are taking money from alcohol and tobacco lobbyists that marijuana is bad.
Post by
Squishalot
@ SkitzoRob (and TheMediator)
I actually thought your first comment was tounge-in-cheek, which is why I laughed. Obviously I've hit a sore point with you.
You both missed the point of the discussion to date. The question wasn't whether drugs are good or bad, or that terrorism is good or bad. The point being argued is that the use of drugs is 'victimless'. The arguments being presented:
1) Drugs cause some people to go crazy and do damage to property/other people. Therefore, it's not victimless.
2) Drugs aren't the 'act' that causes damage, it's the person who individually hits someone on the street, and the hitting is the crime causing the victim, not the use of drugs. So the drug usage is victimless.
3) The drugs are a precedent to the crime being caused, in much the same principle that giving money to a terrorist will lead to a crime being caused. So if you think that drug usage is victimless because people are hurt by the user, not the drug, then terrorist financing is also victimless because people are hurt by the terrorist, not the person handing over the money.
Noone is saying anything about whether drugs are good or bad, or that supporting terrorism is good or bad. Only that it's hypocritical in principle (i.e. as a victimless crime) to support one and not the other. If you don't understand what we're discussing, and want to turn it into a 'terrorism is worse than drugs' thrashing, then I'm not going to waste any more of my time.
Listen, the people who suggest that the "terrorists" (whatever the hell that means) procure money through the distribution of drugs probably aren't all wrong, then again they don't really know how much money goes in and out of the field.
As a matter of fact, 'the people' do know how much, they just can't track it all in real time fast enough to stop it. It's not all through drugs, definitely, a lot of it comes from legitimate businesses who sink their profits into terrorism financing (consider it tithing for terrorists). A decent amount comes from the trading of stolen goods.
If you had any idea how much effort authorities put in to stopping money laundering and terrorist financing at banks and other financial institutions, you'd know that the people 'in charge' know it's not all drug money.
Most of the revenue for criminal organizations come from cocaine last I heard, and I don't think anyone really thinks that cocaine should be illegal anyway.
Depends on your definition of 'criminal organisation'. Given cocaine is probably the highest volume seller in the US, and it's a crime, then chances are, it will be the highest revenue stream for the drug sellers (which by definition are criminal organisations).
If you're talking about the serious end of town, I don't think that cocaine really makes a great deal on their balance sheet. From what I understand, cocaine trading is mainly for the smaller players.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.