|
|
|
|
|
|
by PrimHelios
3233 days ago
|
|
|
>Nor does the argument "There’s no injured party involved in any of this" hold water. There are many illegal things where there is no direct injury to a person. I disagree with you there. His argument was that it shouldn't be illegal because nobody was hurt, not that it isn't illegal. I'd agree with him, victimless crimes are bullshit |
|
|
If I catch a fish on public waters but without a fishing license, is that victimless?
Yes, if you regard the fish as owned by "the public", in which case "the public" is the victim.
Fishing laws exist because there is a tiny damage which is normally below the threshold of general damage, but when magnified by a lot of people becomes meaningful. But I can't point to a specific case and point out the victim.
Doom, as you may recall, originally used the Red Cross symbol on medikits. This is illegal in many countries, due to the Geneva Convention. id software changed the symbol. Who was the victim of their use of the Red Cross symbol?
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits collecting feathers from migratory birds, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act extends that to eagles. Every once in a while someone is prosecuted for using those feathers. For example, Peg Bargon incorporated those feathers in her dreamcatchers, which she then sold.
Who is the victim in this case? (This law exists to prevent a reversion to historical circumstances which, like fishing license laws, were destroying bird populations.)
There are laws against animal cruelty. Who is the victim if I vivisect my dog on my property, away from public eyes?
So, don't try to make this a general thing. Your argument should be that some personal uses of psilocybin should not be illegal. Not the broad (and in my opinion untenable) view that "victimless crimes are bullshit."