Originally posted by CliffLandinhowever the law I quoted can still be applied inside each of those areas, depending on federal interests.
Murder in the first degree isn't punishable by death in every state.
Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands have no capital punishment. So if you are gonna do the crime, do it there.
but this is only taking the discussion away from the original post, a post that might raise the ire of the law and order types, but hasn't enough information for a reasonable person to access blame.
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenGod is never to blame.
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
The devil convince him to do the drugs and kill the guy.
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenThe man for committing the crime. He took the drugs under circumstances in which he was a danger to others. It's his responsibility.
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
If there's a God, he gets a big chunk of blame for it too.
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo. Society should respect the rights of it's citizens and allow them to do whatever drugs they want. However it should punish crimes done under the influence as any other crimes.
The man is guilty of murder. The seller is guilty of selling illegal drugs.
Besides this, there is a responsibility on the part of society. Society should create a safe environment for all wherein people have no easy access to dangerous drugs.
Originally posted by happynowDepends on exactly how the drug worked.
I realise we aren't quite this advanced yet, but what IF a dead man got injected with drugs(legal or illegal) which brought the dead man back to life and he went out and killed a person. Kind of like a zombie or something. Who would be to blame for this?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwhere did the original post say that the man was voluntarily high, or that the drugs caused him to commit the"murder"?
That was the best post so far in this thread. Not yours, happy, but the one you were putting down.
edit BTW heres the original post:
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenWho's to blame? Anyone but me. 😕
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAlas, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens´ right to safety, so if it can be shown that drugs make a society unsafe the government is obliged to prevent the circulation of said drugs in society.
No. Society should respect the rights of it's citizens and allow them to do whatever drugs they want. However it should punish crimes done under the influence as any other crimes.
Of course, when you consider that smoking is legal that statement kind of falls flat on its arse. Now we´re getting into politics on that one.
I have know people who do highly irresponsible things while under the influence of alcohol (a legal drug) and claim to not be responsible for the consequences as they were "under the influence".
It is my personal opinion that if you choose to take any mind altering substance with full knowledge that it may cause you to do something that you would not normally do then you are responsible for any consequences.
The law is often not just about whether or not you are responsible for your actions but whether or not your actions indicate that you are a risk to society.
Originally posted by frogstompHuh? Why are you asking me?
where did the original post say that the man was voluntarily high, or that the drugs caused him to commit the"murder"?
edit BTW heres the original post:
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
Originally posted by nige22What does it mean that "drugs make society unsafe"? Society is not perfectly safe without drugs. Society is not perfectly unsafe with them; maybe less safe at worst.
Alas, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens´ right to safety, so if it can be shown that drugs make a society unsafe the government is obliged to prevent the circulation of said drugs in society.
Of course, when you consider that smoking is legal that statement kind of falls flat on its arse. Now we´re getting into politics on that one.
People should be convicted for hurting others, not for doing something that may tend to influence people to do dangerous things. I've done drugs. I did not hurt anyone as a result.
In any case, the government is unable to prevent the circulation.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What does it mean that "drugs make society unsafe"? Society is not perfectly safe without drugs. Society is not perfectly unsafe with them; maybe less safe at worst.
OK, "drugs make society MORE unsafe" By that I mean that many drugs carry significant health risks, making them a danger to society. If drugs were legalised it´s possible that drug related crimes would decrease. By that I mean things like people stealing money etc. to pay for their illegal, expensive drugs.
People should be convicted for hurting others, not for doing something that may tend to influence people to do dangerous things. I've done drugs. I did not hurt anyone as a result.
Yeah, me too. There´s a line that you have to draw though about how much a certain drug can increase your likelyhood to do something really stupid like going out and killing someone. I´m not sure where that line is, and the problem is that I don´t think many others are too.
In any case, the government is unable to prevent the circulation.
Yep, that´s true, because your government´s tactics are wrong. They treat it like a war when it should be an economic and social issue.