• Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Weed isn’t benign. It exasperates amd can induce psychotic mental health conditions much earlier in some people like schizophrenia and bipolar. It is carcinogenic. It does change people mentally affecting their emotional regulation and behaviors even when not high. There are impacts on already stretched health care systems. And what is wrong with wanting to argue. I want someone to give me good reason to think what constitutes a victimless crime isn’t some arbitrary line

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months 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
            3
            ·
            11 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.