Recently there has been large marijuana grow operations busted as well and just a couple of nights ago one shot another because he was ripped off for $40 pot buy that he did not get, oh but that stuff is a victimless crime, so it must have been something else.
Marijuana dispute led to Wednesday shooting, police say
by Chris Bristol
Yakima Herald-Republic
So, theft is a victimless crime? Does anyone really think that someone would buy a $40
option to buy marijuana?
"
Money disputes can often lead to violence, but it's rare that someone dies over $20."
Woman Stabbed Over $20, Fight On Facebook
"The two women were arguing over a $20 debt, when things got out of hand, reported the Post."
No report of marijuana there. Are you going to denigrate something like usury now? Lending in general?
Tell me something about Washington, BigDave. I read that "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." Wa. Const. art. I, § 1, and that "The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise." Wa. Const. art. I, § 29. I don't see any way to give effect to § 1 under § 29 unless it is to be that every law is established to protect and maintain individual rights. Could we agree that the acquisition, possession, and disposition of property are individual rights? Something purporting to be law that quite facially infringes on such individual rights would have to have a pretty good excuse to actually be law, then, right? Can you come up with such an excuse for any law that infringes on the acquisition, possession, and disposition of marijuana? So is, then, such a law not constitutional? Is then such a law not void?
What we might learn from this is that people have violent disputes over all sorts of things, lawful or otherwise, all of the time. And it turns out that sometimes the biggest cause of the danger, and the biggest danger to us, is not two people who might dispute, but our government. The same injury is done to us whether the unlawful burden is the regulation of acquisition, possession, and disposition of marijuana or the acquisition, possession, and disposition of firearms. We can fully expect a government willing to infringe on one individual right to usurp the next.
I also don't think we can have an obsession for statistics related to violent crime while obstructing markets, creating scarcity where there is demand.