[quad_eye_oh]

I think some of this political conflict is over what constitutes a harmless or victimless or nonviolent crime.

In the past year I've seen different people claim that hemp consumption, property crime, and even intimidation with a firearm were nonviolent and that their perpetrators were merely marginalized individuals who need social assistance rather than prosecution.

I think GP's point is that even property crime is not victimless: It hurts everyone, it makes society worse, and it likely hurts the people at the bottom of society disproportionately.

But I may add, then, that the reformers have the burden of showing evidence for their position: they need to demonstrate that it is possible to have a low-crime, low-prosecution, high social net city somewhere in the US. I'm beginning to suspect that they are missing some critical component which is required to make such a system work for everyone.

[cdogl]

Hemp consumption _is_ non violent. I agree with your overall sentiment but that inclusion made me squint.

[quad_eye_oh]

That's my point, that some people will draw the line at things that are objectively nonviolent, and others will draw it at things that are objectively very close to violent. Actually come to think of it, violence is really just a proxy for harm to others.

[justinclift]

Just to point out:

> ... property crime is not victimless: It hurts everyone ...

"victimless" and "hurts everyone" are both at the two extreme, opposite ends of a spectrum.

It's fairly likely some of the property crimes occurring could be somewhere in the middle.