• 44 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023


  • 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.

  • 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

  • There is always risk. Having easily accessible weed increases the risk that people will operate vehicles while high or increase number of beds needed in medical systems that refuse to increase beds as inhaling smoke increases cancer risk. I can drive through 100 red lights and never hit anyone but an increased demand for medical care in a system that can’t handle it puts me at risk also. I say running a red light is victimless just as smoking weed is also victimless and we have said victimless crimes should not be punishable.