U.S Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) seeks to allow ex-felons to vote.

[Joe Republic]

Yes, there is a God. Who created the universe otherwise?

You assume the question begins with "who".

[bullmoose88]

Name a victimless crime, by the way.

I think a better term to use is, nonconsenting victimless crime.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1a. Yes, there is a God. Who created the universe otherwise?

1b. A mother should not have to pay for her own son's funeral. A mother should not have to bury her own son, full stop.

1c. They're also addictive, make you do dangerous things, lead to crime.

2. Not everybody gets HIV/AIDS via sex. Needle sharing, dodgy blood transfusions, for example, being the child of a woman with said condition.

I oppose that idea because its just plain wrong. It violates peoples' rights and makes being ill a crime. Would you say that the internship of Japanese-Americans was right? There are other ways.

3. Drugs fuel violent crimes.

4. Would you want your 6-year-old child watching a full sex scene in Spongebob Squarepants?

5. Suppose a man is driving along the road and sees a naked woman. He crashes his car and kills four other people. Not harmful?

Wow, my first argument with a libertarian.

1a The problem is your presumption of a who
1b why do you expect me to care?
1c Fro the last time it's not your life

2 So what? How is that any better?

3 No. Making them illegal fuels violent crime.

4 I wouldn't care.

5 Lol strawman option

[© tweed]

why only ex-felons?

[Јas]

1a. Yes, there is a God. Who created the universe otherwise?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1a. Yes, there is a God. Who created the universe otherwise?

lulz

[Alcon]

1a. Yes, there is a God. Who created the universe otherwise?

General tip I've found to be true:

If your statement nullifies thousands of years of intellectual debate about epistemology, you're probably oversimplifying.  Probably.

1b. A mother should not have to pay for her own son's funeral. A mother should not have to bury her own son, full stop.

1c. They're also addictive, make you do dangerous things, lead to crime.

[...]

For that matter, can you name a victimless action?  There are negative repercussions to everything we do.  Not everyone who is lighting up a joint is becoming addicted, or even at much higher risks of doing dangerous things.  Generally, things taken to extremes can be dangerous.  You were given an example of a crime that can be victimless.  It is not always, and the extent to which it usually is, is generally the focus of debates about its legalization.  It was a fair answer, though.

[Ebowed]

Drug use: Damages you, costs the state a lot of money, distresses your relatives.

Infrequent use of nearly any drug is not necessarily harmful.  Does not cost the state a lot of money.  And it depends on your relatives.

Underage drinking: A whole bunch of problems.

The problems, incidentally, which are associated with legal-age drinking.

Public nudity: Rather disturbing to some people.

So is religion, but I don't think anyone's going to make that illegal.

1c. They're also addictive

Depends on which drug you're referring to.

make you do dangerous things,

Not necessarily.

lead to crime.

Only because they're illegal.

3. Drugs fuel violent crimes.

How many hippies stoned off cannabis are likely to beat you up?

5. Suppose a man is driving along the road and sees a naked woman. He crashes his car and kills four other people. Not harmful?

I suppose the same argument could be made about funny billboard advertisements.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As much as loathe Ellison I support this effort.

[Verily]

5. Suppose a man is driving along the road and sees a naked woman. He crashes his car and kills four other people. Not harmful?

I suppose the same argument could be made about funny billboard advertisements.

Yes and no. I am in favor of the legalization of public nudity, but, at the same time, it's not something that we can implement overnight without incidents such as Silent Hunter described becoming far more common. Funny billboards do not cause regular accidents because we're accustomed to them. Public nudity would because we are not accustomed to it.

The real problem is, of course, social realities. We can change those realities, but it takes baby steps. "Shock therapy" is not generally a good solution.

[jimrtex]

I was always under the impression that the purpose of releasing people from jail is to signify that their punishment has ceased.  It always confused me that they'd restore all of their liberties save for the ability to vote, as a result.

What if the release is conditional?

[Silent Hunter]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

[Јas]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

I don't understand your point. Mugging people is a criminal activity regardless of motivation.

By the extention of your line of logic (criminal did X, motivated by want of Y; therefore Y should be banned),  the criminal code would be almost infinite and lead to inumerable ridiculous scenarios.

I should also ask are you in favour of the criminalisation of the sale/supply/possession of alcohol, as one could produce reams of evidence on the harm which alcohol do.

[Verily]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

[Silent Hunter]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

[Verily]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

[minionofmidas]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

Few heroin or cocaine junkies have menial or low-skill jobs, as these are usually too demanding to hold on to with a heroin habit. Lots of successful white-collar people with one, though.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

Correct. We don't have a large problem of people stealing for booze/smokes money so legal drugs would more or less be the same as that. Tobacco is as addictive as heroin but yet we don't have massive amounts of theft involving it.

[Verily]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

Few heroin or cocaine junkies have menial or low-skill jobs, as these are usually too demanding to hold on to with a heroin habit. Lots of successful white-collar people with one, though.

I was thinking more of marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs. You're right about heroin and cocaine being more "high-class", and, hence, they rarely cause robberies to pay for drugs. The ones that do are the hallucinogens.

[minionofmidas]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

Few heroin or cocaine junkies have menial or low-skill jobs, as these are usually too demanding to hold on to with a heroin habit. Lots of successful white-collar people with one, though.

I was thinking more of marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs. You're right about heroin and cocaine being more "high-class", and, hence, they rarely cause robberies to pay for drugs.

More like more socially crunchy. And no, I would assume that heroin "causes" (really, it's the artificially inflated price level, not the drug itself, that's doing that, but nvm...) more theft and robbery.

[Verily]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

Few heroin or cocaine junkies have menial or low-skill jobs, as these are usually too demanding to hold on to with a heroin habit. Lots of successful white-collar people with one, though.

I was thinking more of marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs. You're right about heroin and cocaine being more "high-class", and, hence, they rarely cause robberies to pay for drugs.

More like more socially crunchy. And no, I would assume that heroin "causes" (really, it's the artificially inflated price level, not the drug itself, that's doing that, but nvm...) more theft and robbery.

We're back to the same point: artificially high prices resulting from illegality are the true culprit.

[minionofmidas]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

Few heroin or cocaine junkies have menial or low-skill jobs, as these are usually too demanding to hold on to with a heroin habit. Lots of successful white-collar people with one, though.

I was thinking more of marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs. You're right about heroin and cocaine being more "high-class", and, hence, they rarely cause robberies to pay for drugs.

More like more socially crunchy. And no, I would assume that heroin "causes" (really, it's the artificially inflated price level, not the drug itself, that's doing that, but nvm...) more theft and robbery.

We're back to the same point: artificially high prices resulting from illegality are the true culprit.

Yeah, we're not debating the main point at all, as we agree on that. We're debating about marginalia.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow, my first argument with a libertarian.

LOL

[Verily]

How many people have been mugged for drug money?

Wouldn't this decline if drugs were no longer associated with criminal activity? A drug addict may feel less inclined to obey the law on other issues now because they already break the law buying and selling drugs.

If they need money to buy the drugs (they're hardly going to get them in Medicaid, are they?), they've got two ways to go. Get a job or commit crime. Since no employer would hire a drug addict, they end up committing crime.

I beg to differ. Most drug addicts do have jobs. They have menial or low-skill jobs, but they're still employed. If they weren't, unemployment would be far higher.

Few heroin or cocaine junkies have menial or low-skill jobs, as these are usually too demanding to hold on to with a heroin habit. Lots of successful white-collar people with one, though.

I was thinking more of marijuana, LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs. You're right about heroin and cocaine being more "high-class", and, hence, they rarely cause robberies to pay for drugs.

More like more socially crunchy. And no, I would assume that heroin "causes" (really, it's the artificially inflated price level, not the drug itself, that's doing that, but nvm...) more theft and robbery.

We're back to the same point: artificially high prices resulting from illegality are the true culprit.

Yeah, we're not debating the main point at all, as we agree on that. We're debating about marginalia.

In the end, I don't profess much knowledge about the inner workings of drug trafficking so I will yield to you.

That sounds as if I'm implying that you're a drug dealer. Sorry, please don't take it that way.

[MODU]

Once felons have served their sentence, their right to vote should be restored.

Yes, that is correct.

But not universally true, particularly (IIRC) in the South. I remember Florida was the biggest offender on voting rights (surprise, surprise).

Yes, and it needs to be changed.  There is no reason to allow someone convicted of breaking the law and are currently serving time to vote for someone who makes the law.  Once they serve their sentence and released, then their rights for voting should be restored.