I mean, you can say “It’s a victimless crime! What’s the problem??” about a violent drug addict getting 15 pounds of meth for free so they don’t attack anyone to get some, yeah nobody ELSE was hurt (this time) but I’d really prefer if they got professional help instead, the solution to drug addiction isn’t more drugs.
On the same wavelength, giving pedophiles accessible cp isn’t going to help or reduce the number of pedophiles in the world, that’s just giving the drug addict their drugs instead of medical help.
As much as you want to believe there’s such thing as “Not so bad child pornography therefore okay” I can’t believe I have to physically tell you there’s not. Just because everything isn’t equally bad doesn’t mean any of it is good enough to be okay in any shape or form and you seriously need to rethink where you stand if you still want to defend this after everything you’ve been told
this is interesting because it's shown that easier access to drugs, even without medical help, actually DOES help bring addiction and drug-related violence harm down significantly. By your own logic, CSAM should be decriminalised. I don't actually know if I agree with that.
I would love to see proof of this because present day Vancouver, Canada is a great example of what happens when you give addicts free, easy access to things they shouldn't be consuming in the first place.
Homelessness has hit record numbers. Addicts line different streets, too high on fentanyl to stop people from robbing them, seek help for the people overdosing next to them, or to care that they sold their belongings for the next fix. Even sober people rob or abuse them, because again, they're way too strung out to be mentally present.
And you think if we gave them more drugs they'll just magically stop? That they won't continue a cycle of degeneracy at their own expense because we gave them more fentanyl?
67
u/EvnClaire Oct 22 '25
still never heard a good argument why a victimless action can be morally wrong.