• 9bananas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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.